ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [398] -- Ships Leaving A Sinking Rat

[ Posted Friday, July 1st, 2016 – 17:59 PDT ]

We have to admit, we don't know where we heard that subtitle, and we certainly can't claim original credit for it. We think we read it in a comment to a Washington Post article, but we're not certain. In any case, as the stream of Republicans fleeing the Donald Trump candidacy becomes a flood, it does seem the appropriate metaphor to use -- the ships are leaving the sinking rat this time, not the other way 'round. We'll get to all of these amusing developments in the talking points this week, because we're devoting the entire section to the "Dump Trump" theme this week.

But first, we've got to get through the weekly news wrap-up and our awards. Let's start with our sitting president, whose job approval poll numbers are now solidly above 50 percent for the first time since his second inauguration. Barack Obama went to Canada this week, and while he was there he gave a speech to their legislature. He was wildly cheered as he spoke, in one case even prompting a chant of "Four more years!" from the Canuck politicians (who admittedly may be a little fuzzy on the whole Twenty-Second Amendment thing...). Canadian overenthusiasm aside, though, it is now indisputable that America's standing with the world has improved dramatically ever since Barack Obama took office.

June is Supreme Court decision month, and there was quite a bit of action, even from an incomplete bench. This is going to be a strong argument to motivate Democrats this fall, because if the Senate keeps stonewalling Obama's pick, the next president's going to get a SCOTUS nomination on her first day in office.

Split 4-4 decisions aside (since they'll doubtlessly return to the court once it is full again), there was a lot of good news for women's rights last week. Texas got smacked down for passing laws they swore up and down were "out of concern for women's health" but which were really designed to close every abortion clinic possible. The justices saw through all the pious pseudo-concern for women's health and by a 5-3 vote tossed the laws out. This could (if Obama or Clinton get their pick through, eventually) become a 6-3 majority for the pro-choice faction, it's worth noting.

While the abortion ruling garnered more headlines, the Supreme Court also quietly scored a victory against the abuse of the concept of "freedom of religion" when they refused to take up a case from Washington state. Cases need at least four votes to even be heard by the high court, which means Kennedy sided with the liberals to reject it. Washington passed a law that mandated all licensed pharmacies in the state stock and provide emergency contraceptives (the "morning-after pill"). Individual pharmacists could still refuse to serve a customer if they had religious objections, but (importantly) every pharmacy always had to have at least one pharmacist present who was willing to dispense the medication. In other words, when religious objection can be dealt with without any added burden to the customer then that's fine; but no customer can be turned away or referred to another pharmacy instead, because that does add a substantial burden to the customer. If you want to be a licensed pharmacy in the public marketplace, then you've got to serve all the public's needs, no matter what you personally believe. One pharmacist sued, and lost at the appellate level. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case means the Washington law stands -- another important victory for women's rights.

Pharmacies are licensed and regulated by the state, but some of these "religious freedom" attempts are a lot broader. So it was also heartening to hear that a federal court has thrown out Mississippi's "turn away the gays" law, passed to give legal protection to anyone refusing a marriage license or any other services for "religious reasons." The judge tossed the laws out for being in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Look for this case (or one like it) to eventually make it to the Supreme Court in the next few years, but for now it's good to see judges even in the Deep South doing the right thing.

Let's see, what else? The Pentagon is now going to let transgendered troops serve openly and even allow their insurance to cover all their medical needs. Perhaps not as gigantic a step forward as the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but a milestone nonetheless.

Hillary Clinton surprised some people last weekend, when she joined the New York City gay pride parade, near our country's newest National Monument, the Stonewall Inn. She walked with the marchers for four blocks, reportedly. Hillary had a pretty good week all around, starting with what one reporter called "the most excited crowd I've yet seen at a Clinton rally," when she appeared onstage with Senator Elizabeth Warren (in matching blue jackets, even!). Warren is now openly campaigning to be Hillary's veep choice, it seems obvious. So far, she's been doing a pretty impressive job, especially seeing how easily she manages to get under Donald Trump's skin. Also on some people's possible list for Hillary's veep is none other than Senator Al Franken, but we already wrote about this earlier this week, for anyone interested. In other veep-related news, Al Gore's daughter Karenna was arrested at a protest over an oil pipeline in Boston. Gore's reaction was (naturally) that he was very proud of his daughter.

The other big positive news for Clinton was when Trey Gowdy had to sheepishly admit that while he had compiled an 800-page report after wasting $7 million on his investigation, that all he had to offer up on Benghazi was a big fat nothingburger. After the ninth full investigation, there was simply no new facts to uncover. No smoking guns, no scandals, no conspiracy theories confirmed. Nada. Zip. The big goose egg. Shinola.

Of course, that was before Clinton's husband hopped on Loretta Lynch's plane (which we'll get to in a moment), but in a week that will end in literal fireworks the last (one hopes) Benghazi investigation of all time turned out to be nothing but a dud. Republican conspiracy theorists weren't happy at this fizzle, but then they never seem to be happy about much of anything, so that's not really news.

Bernie Sanders is actually making a goodly amount of progress in getting his planks into the Democratic Party platform document. This is good news for all concerned, since his planks are important ones to progressives, and since he's making good on his pledge to fight for his issues. Maybe the Democrats can achieve unity by the time their convention starts, who knows?

News from the Trump campaign this week included the teaser that Chris Christie is being vetted as a possible veep candidate. Maybe all that standing-around-like-a-zombie-hostage stuff is going to pay off for Christie! Hey, maybe he'll even swing New Jersey, as Garden State voters flock to an opportunity to get him out of their governor's office....

Trump gave another one of those "Hey everyone, look at me, I'm using the TelePrompTer and staying on script!" speeches this week, where he outlined his views on trade. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce immediately reacted in horror to the direction Trump is leading the GOP in, because Trump's anti-NAFTA, anti-T.P.P., anti-free-trade positions truly frighten them. We'll have much more on the subject of conservatives and Republicans fleeing the Trump trainwreck later in the program, however.

One cheerful sign from the Senate campaign trail is that Republicans might just have already given up on two of their incumbent senators. In one of those noticeable-in-its-absence stories, it seems very little money has been earmarked for advertising in Wisconsin (for Ron Johnson) and zero money in Illinois (for Senator Mark Kirk), by both the party and by a super PAC formed to focus on Republican Senate races. Or "winnable Republican Senate races," to be more accurate. If the GOP money bails on Illinois and Wisconsin, that is two out of the four seats Democrats will need to regain control of the Senate again, so this could be good news. It is early, though, and more ads could be purchased later (just to keep things in perspective).

Recreational marijuana legalization ballot initiatives in California and Arizona are moving forward. California's qualified for the ballot and the signatures were turned in for Arizona's, which means citizens in up to eight states may get the chance to vote this November on permanently ending the War On Weed.

And finally, just for fun, Washington (District of Columbia) is considering a name change, should their decades-long push for statehood ever become reality. The new moniker they chose was "New Columbia," but it didn't exactly go over all that well. So the Washington Post is helping out by providing a forum for other suggestions. Part of the problem is that many like the label "DC" and they're already puzzled over how their postal addresses would look in the future, since North Carolina already has a lock on "NC." This led to suggestions like "District Commonwealth," but that seems to be counterintuitive for a new state. Of course, being the internet, there were some highly amusing entries as well, such as "Doris (I like the name Doris)" submitted by (you guessed it), "Doris." One canny entry was "Reagan (it might win over one or two Republicans)," but our favorite was either "Waist (It's inside the Beltway)" or (down in the comments) "Area 51." Heh. If you've got a better idea what D.C. should call itself if it ever achieves statehood, head on over and share your suggestion!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Republicans in the Senate tried to sneak through a bill that would have let the F.B.I. search everyone's browser history without having to get a warrant before doing so. If you didn't hear about this, you're not alone, because it wasn't exactly a big news story or anything. The frightening part is how close it came to pass -- it essentially failed by one vote to gain the 60-vote threshold to move forward.

One Democratic senator bravely fought against it and stood up for the Bill of Rights. Which is why this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon.

The provision was introduced by John McCain and Richard Burr, and apparently snuck under the radar of many senators. As Wyden explains:

A conservative came up to me and said, "Do you think people know that under this [bill], without any court approval the government can get people's browsing history?" I said, "I don't think most of the Senate knows that."

Interesting that "a conservative" was the one to bring it to Wyden's attention. Perhaps Rand Paul had a word in his ear or something? One can only speculate....

Some Democrats voted for this measure who had voted against allowing the N.S.A. to collect bulk metadata from phone records last year. They may not have even been aware exactly what it was they were voting for, which is why Wyden is now pressuring them to rethink their stance, since the issue will likely be brought up again for future votes.

For remaining vigilant (with the help of an unnamed conservative, to be fair) against those who would wish to water down the Bill of Rights even further, we have to say that the choice of Senator Ron Wyden for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week was an easy one to make.

[Congratulate Senator Ron Wyden on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

We've got two very obvious winners of this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch showed an astounding amount of bad judgment this week, on an airport tarmac.

Bill apparently was bored hanging around the airport, and noticed another security detail nearby. When he found out Lynch was also waiting in a plane, he decided he'd do the neighborly thing and drop by for a casual chat. Lynch let him onto her plane and they chatted for 20 or 30 minutes. Then Bill went back to his own plane, and they both took off for their respective destinations.

Now, this wouldn't normally be all that big a deal. An ex-president meets with the current A.G., who is from his own party. Nothing but simple courtesy among like-minded politicians.

That would be true, of course, if several other things weren't true as well. Bill's wife, of course, is under investigation by the F.B.I. Whenever they get around to finishing their work, they will report to the Justice Department. Lynch runs the Justice Department, and has the final say-so on what happens after the F.B.I. hands in their recommendation. And, to top it all off, Hillary is running for president.

These dots aren't all that hard to connect, in fact. The picture they draw is a giant "STOP" sign -- as in, "this is a very bad idea, politically." The optics are terrible. Even Lynch admitted the next day: "I certainly wouldn't do it again." Former president meets with A.G. weeks before she'll have to decide whether or not to indict his wife? In the midst of a presidential campaign? It's a no-brainer, really -- that meeting should not have happened. At the most, Lynch should have appeared at the door of her plane, shaken his hand in full view of everyone, then immediately directed him back down the stairs and turned around to go back inside her plane. Bill Clinton never should have knocked on her plane's door in the first place -- he bears more blame for this idiocy than she does, in fact.

Now, we do take Lynch at her word that all they did was chat about their grandkids and other personal trivia. And to her credit, the next day Lynch swore she wasn't even going to be an active part of the process -- she had long intended to just follow whatever recommendation was in the report. This is all to the good, and restores a great deal of her credibility.

Even so, she never should have agreed to meet Clinton, and he really should have known better than to even instigate the impromptu meeting. He's a better politician than this, to put it bluntly.

For even raising the appearance of impropriety and raising the question of bias over what is already going to be a pivotal moment for Hillary Clinton's campaign, both Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch have more than earned this week's awards for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Seems like the Big Dog needs to be on an even-shorter leash out on the campaign trail. Team Hillary should take note.

[Contact Attorney General Loretta Lynch on her official contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions. President Bill Clinton is a private citizen, and our policy is not to provide contact information for such.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 398 (7/1/16)

Before we begin with our "Dump Trump" theme, we have to draw attention to a leaked memo from the Republicans. It's an opposition-research memo on the six top vice-presidential picks Hillary Clinton could make, in essence. It lists possible tactics for attacking each, and suggests talking points to use if they are chosen. It's a preview of what all Republicans will be saying about these choices, should any of them become Clinton's running mate.

It's a narrowly-focused professional version (from the other side) of what we attempt to do here each week, which is why we thought it was interesting enough to point out. It also shows that professional talking points are crafted to contradict themselves, in order to appeal to everyone with at least one message they may agree with. When talking about Tim Kaine, for instance, the document makes the argument that he's been ineffective at all his political jobs, and then goes on to suggest:

Politically, there will be dual narratives to push: firstly, that Kaine's selection will upset the Sanders wing of the party for not being liberal enough (see above); secondly, that Kaine's selection makes the ticket more liberal than the electorate. Given his career trajectory from ACLU lawyer, Kaine is also a hyperactive partisan, once going so far to as to [sic] call Republicans "mosquitos."

Got all of that? Kaine has never gotten anything done, but at the same time he's a super-duper-hyper partisan who calls Republicans nasty names and should be feared. Also, he's either not liberal enough or perhaps too liberal -- take your choice. The whole document [PDF] is a fascinating one for anyone with a strong enough stomach to study the mechanics of talking point creation.

This week, for us, was a fairly easy one in the talking point creation department. Trump just keeps right on being Trump, and more and more Republicans are realizing that he's never going to change even if they can force him to give the occasional speech from a TelePrompTer. So, once again, it's "shooting fish in a barrel" season (a season which might last right up to November, we hasten to add). Enjoy.

 

1
   #SleazyDonald

You just can't make this stuff up, folks!

"I see Donald Trump hired a new communications guy this week. I guess after he fired his campaign manager, he decided it was time to staff up. I've heard he's been having problems getting people to work on his campaign, since some Republican political operatives fear for their own future careers. Even the ones Trump has managed to hire seem to despise him. His new communications guy had to quickly delete a whole bunch of tweets he had written during the primary season with the prominent use of the hashtag '#SleazyDonald.' So I guess Trump's not being too picky about who he'll hire, because at this point he probably can't afford to be."

 

2
   Half the GOP base

A rather stunning statistic, and one that needs pointing out.

"Did you see the new poll that shows that half of Republican voters -- not the general electorate, but just Republicans, mind you -- wish they had a different nominee than Donald Trump? That's pretty jaw-dropping, at this stage of the campaign. We're only weeks away from the Republican National Convention, and over half of their voters would really like to see a different guy on the ballot. Trump also got very low marks on intelligence, honesty, and whether or not he's 'obnoxious.' Once again -- this is how majorities of Republican voters feel about their party's presidential nominee."

 

3
   Former RNC leader praying for a miracle

This one's a direct quote, because it pretty much speaks for itself. This is from an extraordinary article from Marc Racicot, a former head of the Republican National Committee, explaining why he cannot endorse Donald Trump:

[Donald] Trump has demonstrated neither the aforementioned qualities of principled leadership, nor offered any substantive or serious conservative policy proposals consistent with historical Republican Party platform positions. Both, in my humble view, are indispensable preconditions to his selection as the Republican candidate for the office of president of the United States. As a result, I cannot endorse or support Trump for president. And I offer my prayer for a second miracle in Cleveland.

 

4
   The list grows longer every week

We've spent previous weeks listing prominent GOP stalwarts who have dumped Trump, but now there's a handy reference!

"The Washington Post has begun a list -- which they swear they'll be updating regularly -- of all the prominent Republicans who have not only said they won't support Donald Trump as their party's nominee, but have publicly thrown their support to Hillary Clinton instead. This is an astounding development, as I can't recall another time when such respected party stalwarts have not just refused to endorse their own candidate for president, but actually crossed the aisle to support the other party's candidate. This sort of thing just doesn't normally happen, folks. And it's not just one or two -- the Post will be keeping track of the entire list of Republican Party bigwigs (and little-wigs) who are now supporting Clinton over their own party's candidate."

 

5
   Or you can just leave the party entirely...

This wasn't exactly that surprising if you've read anything he's written over the past year on Donald Trump, but still....

"Conservative columnist George Will has now not only said he won't support Donald Trump's candidacy, he's actually so disgusted by the prospect that he has publicly left the Republican Party altogether. That's right -- George Will is no longer a registered Republican. Will has always been an establishment Republican, well-ensconced in what passes for the inside-the-Beltway conservative intelligentsia. So his defection is all the more notable, although how influential it might be remains to be seen. Somehow I can't see a whole lot of Trump followers making it through many George Will columns. But you can at least hope that other conservatives with a strong sense of conscience will follow Will as he exits the Republican Party. Trump now leads the GOP, and Trumpism is now Republicanism. If you can't deal with that, then maybe it's time to follow George Will's lead, instead."

 

6
   The Mexican Air Force?

We couldn't resist this one, the best "Trumpism" of the week, hands down.

"Donald Trump, while campaigning in New Hampshire, was in the midst of his usual anti-Mexico rant when he spotted a plane overhead. His reaction? I quote: 'That could be a Mexican plane up there -- they're getting ready to attack!' Seriously, that's what he said. His paranoia seems to have reached new heights if he thinks the Mexican Air Force had somehow infiltrated not just across the border we share, but deep into New England -- just to personally attack him. And this is the person the Republican Party wants to have his finger on the nuclear button? Really?"

 

7
   Tramps Against Trump

We, as usual, saved the best one for last. The only really shocking thing about this is that it was originally a Canadian idea (it was originally "Sluts Against Harper") -- we knew they were friendly up there, but this friendly?

"A group calling itself 'Tramps Against Trump' is offering up an unusual incentive to vote against Donald Trump. While they aren't specifically for any candidate, if you send their site a selfie with proof that you just voted -- and swear you voted against Donald Trump -- then they'll send you a naked photo. Their spokesperson, who goes by the name Jessica Rabbit, explained: 'In the past we had Rock the Vote and other ways to get the vote out, but what do young people like now? They like naked people on the internet. So, we're using naked people on the internet to make a change and get people excited about something.' Hey, whatever works! She's right about one thing -- naked people on the internet are indeed quite popular, from what I hear (ahem). I'm not sure it's entirely legal, but it certainly is a creative new use of social media in the realm of American politics, that's for sure."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

513 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [398] -- Ships Leaving A Sinking Rat”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He was wildly cheered as he spoke, in one case even prompting a chant of "Four more years!" from the Canuck politicians (who admittedly may be a little fuzzy on the whole Twenty-Second Amendment thing...).

    Nope. Not fuzzy at all.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Canadian overenthusiasm aside, though, it is now indisputable that America's standing with the world has improved dramatically ever since Barack Obama took office.

    Overenthusiasm, eh? How so, pray tell ...

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, we do take Lynch at her word that all they did was chat about their grandkids and other personal trivia.

    Well, it doesn't really matter what they talked about or if they spoke at all, does it. Because the incredibly bad optics start with Bill boarding the plane and end with him exiting the plane 30 minutes later.

    In other words, the mere fact that Bill Clinton made the "friendly visit" at all is what is the matter here. He didn't have to actually talk about investigations to send a message about investigations.

    Fully understanding this, Attorney General Lynch had to explicitly state that she will be accepting whatever it is that the FBI concludes and recommends. In fact, that is an implicit message in and of itself, isn't it ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    He's a better politician than this, to put it bluntly.

    That may have been true, at some point. But, that was then and this is now.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seems like the Big Dog needs to be on an even-shorter leash out on the campaign trail. Team Hillary should take note.

    Hillary should take note that her husband should not be allowed anywhere near the campaign trail.

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    State of DC names

    District Nein (defiant upgrade)

    Washy MacWashington

    ACDC

    Laws R' US

    New Bedlam

  7. [7] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Nice take down of the Lynch meeting....Totally bad optics all politics aside. She should have applied basic conflict of interest education and passed... or requested an eternal holding pattern, or called Holder to ask where the lock was.

    But then again how bad can it be considering Clinton has hired the same attorney who represented Patreus...Stupidity abides, but the dude does not...

    I guess we can look forward to various panels of investigation spending millions upon millions of dollars to investigate "tarmackgate" or is it "tarmackazi" if the ultimate decision handed down is not in one parties favor.

    Maybe this is one we can come back to this one after someone argles for 30 or 40 comments about it and bargles on for at least another 50 or 60 (seeing as how it is a three day weekend)when 5 or 6 succinct comments would do.

    Names for DC ? Lets try...

    Bribealvania
    Nothinggetsdoneitsan
    Troughland (think pigs)
    Gridlockida

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would be true, of course, if several other things weren't true as well. Bill's wife, of course, is under investigation by the F.B.I. Whenever they get around to finishing their work, they will report to the Justice Department. Lynch runs the Justice Department, and has the final say-so on what happens after the F.B.I. hands in their recommendation. And, to top it all off, Hillary is running for president.

    Bill Clinton himself is ALSO under investigation by the FBI...

    Now, we do take Lynch at her word that all they did was chat about their grandkids and other personal trivia. And to her credit, the next day Lynch swore she wasn't even going to be an active part of the process -- she had long intended to just follow whatever recommendation was in the report. This is all to the good, and restores a great deal of her credibility.

    Change LYNCH to GONZALEZ and then make the same claim.. :D

    It restores NONE of her credibility..

    The ONLY way it would have restored any credibility if Lynch herself had fess'ed up to the meeting. But she didn't.. A local AZ reporter exposed the meeting..

    #SleazyDonald

    Hussein Odumbo... :D

    I would address the TPs one by one but the theme is a common one...

    It's also completely negated by the current polling that shows Hillary LOSING to Donald Trump.. :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    Maybe this is one we can come back to this one after someone argles for 30 or 40 comments about it and bargles on for at least another 50 or 60 (seeing as how it is a three day weekend)when 5 or 6 succinct comments would do.

    And you are the one to say how many comments will do exactly why???

    Maybe if ya'all spent less time talking ABOUT my comments and me personally and more time actually ADDRESSING the points of my comments, I wouldn't HAVE to post 50 or 60 comments trying to get ya'all to concede what is blatantly obvious...

    Think about it... :^D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Well, it doesn't really matter what they talked about or if they spoke at all, does it. Because the incredibly bad optics start with Bill boarding the plane and end with him exiting the plane 30 minutes later.

    In other words, the mere fact that Bill Clinton made the "friendly visit" at all is what is the matter here. He didn't have to actually talk about investigations to send a message about investigations.

    Exactly...

    No matter how you slice it, this was a totally stoopid and moronic move by Clinton AND Lynch...

    I am glad we are all in agreement on this. There IS hope for ya'all... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Having said the afore, KUDOS to you for the MDDOTW award...

    NO ONE, myself included, cannot say you are not fair, when you call a spade a spade.. :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe if ya'all spent less time talking ABOUT my comments and me personally and more time actually ADDRESSING the points of my comments, I wouldn't HAVE to post 50 or 60 comments trying to get ya'all to concede what is blatantly obvious...

    The bonehead move by Bubba and Lynch is a perfect example..

    I brought this up yesterday... Did anyone concede that it was a totally moronic move??? No..

    And, if CW hadn't brought it up, I probably WOULD have commented on it 50 or 60 times...

    But, since we are ALL in agreement on how bad, how moronic and how utterly stoopid it was....

    You won't hear me mention it again beyond using it as an example... Because there is no reason to mention it again. Because we all agree...

    That's the point...

    If you don't want to see 50 or 60 comments from me on a specific point, then simply concede the point when warranted...

    It's not rocket science... It's not brain surgery.. It's common sense..

    The sky won't fall and the world won't end if ya'all actually agree with me here and there... Don'tcha know.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    bill clinton

    and any female

    alone in a plane

    for a half hour?

    i'm sure they had a very deep... discussion.

    JL

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as for the mexican air force, heck even i could tell that was a joke. it was a lousy joke and an unnecessary poke at mexico, but that's par for the course. so to speak.

    JL

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it is interesting that rasmussen has trump up four points on hillary this week. at the moment it's an outlier, first poll since mid may to tilt that way. perhaps it's just a blip, but given rasmussen's selection methods are different from most polling organizations, the change (rasmussen had hillary up by four last week) may yield some interesting information.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    bill clinton

    and any female

    alone in a plane

    for a half hour?

    i'm sure they had a very deep... discussion.

    Credit where credit is due.

    THAT was funny as hell!! :D

    as for the mexican air force, heck even i could tell that was a joke. it was a lousy joke and an unnecessary poke at mexico,

    Mexico police, troops 'routinely' rape arrested women
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-police-troops-routinely-rape-arrested-women-amnesty-065118016.html

    I'm just sayin'...

    it is interesting that rasmussen has trump up four points on hillary this week. at the moment it's an outlier, first poll since mid may to tilt that way. perhaps it's just a blip, but given rasmussen's selection methods are different from most polling organizations, the change (rasmussen had hillary up by four last week) may yield some interesting information.

    And another kudos for going where no one else wanted to go..

    "Bravo, Hunter. Your stock just went up a few points."
    -Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Fully understanding this, Attorney General Lynch had to explicitly state that she will be accepting whatever it is that the FBI concludes and recommends. In fact, that is an implicit message in and of itself, isn't it ...

    “The recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the Department of Justice and in the FBI, and by the FBI director, and then, as is the common process, they present it to me and I fully expect to accept their recommendations.”

    Not as explicit as I thought it was when I first reported this yesterday....

    Typical weasel'ing statement from a Democrat who wants to discuss what the definition of 'is' is... :^/

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Can you rescue a comment from the NNL filter??

    Let's see, what else? The Pentagon is now going to let transgendered troops serve openly and even allow their insurance to cover all their medical needs. Perhaps not as gigantic a step forward as the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but a milestone nonetheless.

    Speaking as a military man, I dunno if I want to sit in a foxhole with a guy/girl who is mentally confused as to whether they ARE a guy or a girl..

    And I am fairly certain that I speak for the vast majority of service people out there...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    His paranoia seems to have reached new heights if he thinks the Mexican Air Force had somehow infiltrated not just across the border we share, but deep into New England -- just to personally attack him.

    While I agree with JL that this was obviously a joke, the paranoia is not so outlandish...

    A Left Winger DID try to assassinate Trump...

    Funny how no one (N.E.N.) wants to address or condemn that, eh?? :D

    If a Right Winger had tried to assassinate Clinton ya'all (and the Lame Stream Media) would have been screaming it from the rooftops..

    Am I wrong??

    "Yer not wrong."
    -God, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Scheduled To Meet With FBI On Saturday
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/

    I would love to be a fly on the wall for THAT little confab.... :D

    After the ninth full investigation, there was simply no new facts to uncover. No smoking guns, no scandals, no conspiracy theories confirmed. Nada. Zip. The big goose egg. Shinola.

    Well, except for the FACT that Hillary was COMPLETELY incompetent and directly caused the deaths of 4 good Americans, including our AMBASSADOR... In other words, Hillary had SIX HUNDRED 0300 phone calls and she let the machine answer them...

    But yer right.. Hillary's total and complete incompetence and disregard for anything or anyone but her own ambitions IS "nothing new".

    I am in complete agreement with you on that...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The bonehead move by Bubba and Lynch is a perfect example..I brought this up yesterday... Did anyone concede that it was a totally moronic move??? No..

    Oh, I think I pretty much conceded that yesterday ...
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/30/vice-president-al-franken/#comment-78183

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In fact, looks like I'm to the right of you on this one, Michale. But, not to worry, I'll survive ... somehow or other ... :)

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmWxj9bWYAAgsi5.jpg

    hehehehehehehe

    Now THAT'S funny.... :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Oh, I think I pretty much conceded that yesterday ...
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/06/30/vice-president-al-franken/#comment-78183

    I stand corrected, Liz.. My sincerest and humblest apologies... I should have paid closer attention...

    Welcome to the ranks of the N.E.N.s :D

    In fact, looks like I'm to the right of you on this one, Michale. But, not to worry, I'll survive ... somehow or other ... :)

    heh.. Yea, I have to admit, you ARE pretty adamant about this..

    Kudos to you..

    I have never been happier about being wrong, in this case.. :D

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's better. :)

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI Director James Comey is now firmly in the driver’s seat of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, after Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged she would accept whatever course of action his bureau and career prosecutors recommend.
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286349-fbi-director-takes-center-stage-in-clinton-email-case

    Ya'all sweating yet???

    If we don't hear DIRECTLY from Director Comey on this, there will be hell to pay...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's better. :)

    I aim to please.. :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The threat of political pain even with no indictment was underscored as dozens of Republicans lawmakers pressed Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special prosecutor far removed from the White House to determine if any laws have been broken.
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article87312972.html#storylink=cpy

    This proves beyond ANY doubt that the GOP is not interested in derailing Hillary POTUS bid, but rather just getting at the facts of the crime...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    20 Hostages Killed in Bangladesh Restaurant Attack, ISIS Claims Responsibility
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/shooting-hostage-situation-underway-bangladesh/story?id=40283510

    Well, I am sure glad that the Daesch is just the "JV" and it is "contained"..

    Otherwise, I would be really worried about all the terrorist attacks committed by them....

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a completely unrelated note..

    The wife and I have been binge-watching CONTAINMENT.. Pretty good show..

    Is it just me or does the main cop character, Major Alex Carnaghan... Isn't he the perfect clone for Denzel Washington 10-20 years ago???

    His voice, his inflections, his mannerisms...

    If I closed my eyes, I would swear that I am hearing Denzel Washington circa CRIMSON TIDE....

    Anyone??

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    One Democratic senator bravely fought against it and stood up for the Bill of Rights.

    It's funny...

    Last weekend ya'all cheered when Democrats fought against the Bill Of Rights...

    Ironic, iddn't it..

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Never in the history of this country has a Presidential Candidate been investigated for FELONY violations of the US ESPIONAGE ACT, while running for the office of President...

    That says ALL that one needs to know about the Democrat Candidate for POTUS...

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-12

    So, asking for source material is personal? You ought to look to your own comments bub. They tend to be full contact. You dish it out, and that's fine by me, I like rough and tumble debate, but you don't want to take it, which leads to an asymmetry with which I have a problem. Are you special or something? You donate generously to this site, and I respect you for that. However, I can't accept it giving you an expectation of special treatment.

    What is the horror of me asking for a citation? You give a citation for every God Damned Sci Fi quote you make! I'm not asking for anything you don't do on a regular basis. I like to be able to distinguish facts from factoids = propaganda. Sorry if that makes me a terrible person.

    If you go into a Democratic Lion Den, expect to be scratched, and or chewed upon. There are plenty of other sites where you can chat with fellow travelers. Nobody is dragging you into CW.com. for an easy meal. You seem to like it here...except when somebody disagrees with how you play the game.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, asking for source material is personal?

    So, asking you to address the actual point is personal???

    You seem to like it here...except when somebody disagrees with how you play the game.

    No.. I just refuse to play by your rules... The rules that allow you to nit-pick at irrelevant hyperbole without addressing the main point...

    So... If you want to address the point.... the fact that Trump has accomplished more when he is running for POTUS than Hussein Odumbo accomplished when HE was running for POTUS...

    Address that fact and then we'll talk...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    This issue is a perfect example of what I talked about in comment #9... Many of you complain about my excessive posts... But the excessive posts stems from the fact that ya'all can't address a simple point..

    Towhit.. Trump has accomplished more when he is running for POTUS than Hussein Odumbo accomplished when HE was running for POTUS...

    You can't concede that point so you put out an excessive amount of irrelevant questions about the numbers.. And so there is a dozen odd posts spread out over 2 commentaries when all that is needed is a single response..

    "Yes... Trump has more experience creating jobs than Obama had when Obama was running for POTUS."

    One comment and the subject is closed...

    But ya'all simply CAN'T do that because ya'all would have to AGREE with me...

    "OH MY GOD!!! WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNIE

    :D

    So, you go on with these endless quibbles and debates trying to prove to me that the definition of 'is' is not what I think it is...

    Just concede the frakin' facts and ya'all can end the 50-60 comments that ya'all CLAIM to dislike...

    Notice there hasn't been 50-60 comments about the SNAKES ON A PLANE issue...

    That's because the facts were conceded...

    Is it REALLY so hard???

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Three American students among 20 people hacked to death in Bangladesh by ISIS terrorists - who only spared those who could recite the Koran - before armored troops moved in
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671369/American-student-20-people-hacked-death-Bangladesh-ISIS-terrorists-spared-recite-Koran-armored-troops-moved-in.html#ixzz4DHJysk27

    How can this be!???

    ISIS is "the JV"... ISIS is "contained".... Debate is welcome on domestic surveillance... If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan....

    I am really cornfused....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    We’re Better Than That
    Timothy Egan JULY 1, 2016

    More than a century ago, in the first attempts to shape the face of a nation open to people from all nations, the United States banned convicts, prostitutes and Chinese laborers from landing on our shores. Later, “idiots” were added to the list of forbidden immigrants. Alas, it was too early keep Donald Trump at bay.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/opinion/were-better-than-that.html?ref=opinion

    Apparently, Mr Egan is not "Better Than That"... :^/

    That's what galls me most about the Left Wingery... The blatant and unapologetic hypocrisy...

    "I really hate torture, but I would love to torture Dick Cheney!!!"

    "I hate all Republicans!! They are such bigots!!!"

    I really wish the Left could step outside themselves and look how they sound to someone NOT enslaved by Party ideology...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really wish the Left could step outside themselves and look how they sound to someone NOT enslaved by Party ideology...

    Which isn't to say that the Right doesn't have their own issues with enslavement.. They do...

    But bringing those up in this forum is highly redundant.. :D

    "What would this country be without this great land of ours?"
    "Uh.... Mr President?? Mr President?? In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 'see redundant'.."
    "OK, ya got me on that one.."

    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Never in the history of this country has a Presidential Candidate been investigated for FELONY violations of the US ESPIONAGE ACT, while running for the office of President...

    That says ALL that one needs to know about the Democrat Candidate for POTUS...

    And ya'all can't make the claim that it's all politically motivated because it's ALL coming from within the subject's OWN PARTY....

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Speaking as a military man, I dunno if I want to sit in a foxhole with a guy/girl who is mentally confused as to whether they ARE a guy or a girl.."

    Except they are NOT confused. They know exactly what gender they are. The only problem is that their physical body does not accurately match the gender they know themselves to be both mentally and emotionally. In any case, the ONLY thing that should be important in that kind of situation, is their ability to handle a weapon and to have their comrade's back in the face of the enemy, and nothing else.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If you think of the soldier next to you as a fellow human being and comrade-in-arms who has similar hopes and dreams and who loves their country just as much as you do, then you probably wouldn't have much of a problem sitting next to them in a foxhole, or anywhere else.

  42. [42] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Regarding the ship deserting a sinking rat meme.

    "Could we have seen the first recorded instance of a ship deserting a sinking Rat?"

    Anthony Lane, Britain votes to stand alone. The New Yorker Magazine, June 23.

    Something to do with Brexit, the former lead singer of the Boomtown Rats, now a politician, demonstrations on the Thames, a water fight between opposing flotillas and the boarding of an enemy vessel.

  43. [43] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    No.. I just refuse to play by your rules... The rules that allow you to nit-pick at irrelevant hyperbole without addressing the main point...

    The problem is that you constantly are referring to your "irrelevant hyperbole" as being a FACT that we must concede to. Your admission that your main points are filled with hyperbole should make the reason that no one chooses to concede to your main points obvious, I would think. The crux of your arguments seem to be defined by that hyperbole which only you consider to be irrelevant.

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    LWYH [42]:

    Trust me on this, you are wasting your time.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Except they are NOT confused.

    Except that, when they talk about their issue, they ALWAYS say that confusion was a big part of their lives...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you think of the soldier next to you as a fellow human being and comrade-in-arms who has similar hopes and dreams and who loves their country just as much as you do, then you probably wouldn't have much of a problem sitting next to them in a foxhole, or anywhere else.

    That's all well and good and nice and cuddly..

    But rarely applicable when bullets are flying...

    "It's all psychological.."
    -Ace Ventura

    :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    The problem is that you constantly are referring to your "irrelevant hyperbole" as being a FACT that we must concede to.

    Nope, you are doing exactly what they are doing.. Ignoring the point in favor of incidental hyperbole..

    Let me put it this way..

    The POINT is that Trump has created more jobs when he is running for President than Obama had created when Obama ran for President..

    I said that he created MILLIONS of jobs world-wide as supporting evidence...

    Ya'all question the "Millions Of Jobs" hyperbole so as to ignore the main point..

    But, even if it WASN'T "millions" of jobs.. Even if it was HUNDREDS of jobs.. Or THOUSANDS of jobs... Or even TENS of jobs...

    THE MAIN POINT IS STILL THE SAME...

    Trump has created more jobs than Obama, when Obama ran for POTUS..

    Your admission that your main points are filled with hyperbole should make the reason that no one chooses to concede to your main points obvious,

    I never said the main point was filled with hyperbole.. NEVER.. NOT ONCE...

    The crux of your arguments seem to be defined by that hyperbole which only you consider to be irrelevant.

    As I have proven beyond ANY doubt, the supporting hyperbole ISN'T relevant to the main point..

    You have ALSO proven another of my main points...

    If ya'all would just address the main point, then ya'all wouldn't see the 50-60 follow-up comments that ya'all CLAIM ya'all don't like...

    Just in case it's not clear, I'll repeat it..

    Donald Trump has created more jobs (maybe millions, maybe thousands, maybe hundreds) than Hussein Odumbo had created when Odumbo ran for POTUS...

    THIS IS FACT...

    Does ANYONE want to address that fact???

    Or would ya'all like to continue to discuss what the definition of 'is' is for another 50-60 comments, making the entire comment section about me, personally??

    As ya'all are wont to do..

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Is there anything that you like about your country?

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trust me on this, you are wasting your time.

    A> It's his time to waste....

    and

    2> Any time spent on acquiring knowledge is not wasted...

    Of course, those who DON'T want knowledge, those who just want to further a bigoted, partisan agenda with no thought to facts or reality...

    Yea, for THOSE kind of people, it might be wasted time..

    But I don't think Listen is that kind of people..

    You??

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But rarely applicable when bullets are flying...

    How do you know who you can depend on when the bullets start flying?

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    People familiar with the case have said previously that charges against Clinton seemed unlikely and that there was a particular void of evidence showing she intended to mishandle classified information, although they asserted investigators were still probing the matter aggressively.

    Intent is not required to prove a crime.. All that is required is that the subject was negligent..

    Odumbo himself has stated that Clinton showed bad judgement, which is simply another word for negligent...

    The interview with Clinton was always seen as critical. If the former secretary was untruthful with investigators, she could be charged with making false statements.

    Considering how Clinton has lied to everyone about everything to do with her private insecure hacked bathroom closet email server, this is likely the charge that will trip Clinton up...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you know who you can depend on when the bullets start flying?

    Trust...

    And, as I pointed out, when someone is confused about something as basic as their gender, trust is hard to come by..

    Let me put this another way..

    Would you want to put your life in the hands of someone who insists he or she is a Klingon??

    Say you are going to be operated on and your doctor walks in to the surgery theater in full Klingon garb, surgically altered to BE a Klingon..

    Would you want that doctor operating on you??

    Or would you think to yourself, "If this guy actually BELIEVES he is of an extraterrestrial race from a TV show, he must have some REAL mental issues to deal with.. I am not sure I want to place my life in his hands.."

    You see what I mean??

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it still another way...

    If Hillary Clinton announced today that she is actually a man, trapped in a woman's body, and she will be transitioning into a man and will be known as Hobart Clinton on election day...

    Do you think she would still win the election??

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    In any case, the ONLY thing that should be important in that kind of situation, is their ability to handle a weapon and to have their comrade's back in the face of the enemy, and nothing else.

    In a perfect koom-bye-ya world, you could be correct..

    But we don't live in a perfect koom-bye-ya world and the US Military is DEFINITELY not koom-bye-ya..

    And, in the military, unit cohesion is priority number one...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is there anything that you like about your country?

    Plenty..

    And the majority of what I like about my country is IN SPITE of Odu.... Obama and the Democrats...

    Not BECAUSE of Obama and the Democrats..

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reagan said it best..

    "Is your life better than it was 8 years ago?"

    The answer for over 70% of Americans, myself included, is a loud and resounding *NO*....

    Given this fact, the choice in the election is clear...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    American flags burned, vandalized, stolen across U.S.
    http://theamericanmirror.com/homeowner-installs-camera-catch-flag-thief/

    What does that tell you???

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I would speculate that Trump has "created" more jobs than Obama had when he first ran for President, but I have no data to support this comment nor do I understand why you insist on having us concede this point -- This is a pointless point! The number of people who Trump failed to pay for the work they performed and just how many of the jobs he created overseas were sweat shops that use child labor are more important factors that deserve our focus more than just that he created 500 jobs. The fact that he spent over half a million dollars to try to keep the maid staff from unionizing at his Las Vegas resort is more important than just the number of employees he has there.

    And in response to [52], I would vote Hank Clinton because he would still be the most qualified person to be the next President. Would you vote for Clinton then? The way that you focus so much on saying that people are only voting for her because she is a woman, it gives the impression that it is the same thing that prevents you from voting for her!

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would speculate that Trump has "created" more jobs than Obama had when he first ran for President, but I have no data to support this comment

    The mere fact that Trump is responsible for over 500 businesses is all the data you need..

    nor do I understand why you insist on having us concede this point -- This is a pointless point!

    Then there shouldn't be any problem in conceding the point, right??

    The number of people who Trump failed to pay for the work they performed and just how many of the jobs he created overseas were sweat shops that use child labor are more important factors that deserve our focus more than just that he created 500 jobs. The fact that he spent over half a million dollars to try to keep the maid staff from unionizing at his Las Vegas resort is more important than just the number of employees he has there.

    Of course it is when you consider JUST your own agenda..

    But I would wager that the employees that Trump DID have throughout his career would feel differently..

    And in response to [52], I would vote Hank Clinton because he would still be the most qualified person to be the next President

    Of course YOU would for for her..

    But, once again, THAT is not the question I asked...

    And here we go with another 50-60 comments.. :D

    The way that you focus so much on saying that people are only voting for her because she is a woman, it gives the impression that it is the same thing that prevents you from voting for her!

    Hardly... I am not voting for her because she is a crook and a liar and is responsible for the deaths of MANY a good American..

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hardly... I am not voting for her because she is a crook and a liar and is responsible for the deaths of MANY a good American..

    I am also not voting for Hillary because she is incompetent and has never accomplished anything worthwhile in her entire life..

    Trump is a PROVEN success in the areas that this country needs...

    That's why more Americans believe Trump is better for the economy and jobs than Hillary..

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Americans say that Trump is more trustworthy than Clinton (45% to 37%) and that Trump would be a stronger leader than Clinton (49% to 43%)....

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neil M-43

    Right... and the best policy is simply: Please Do Not Feed the Trolls. From this day forth, to the ending of the world, that's my policy around here. My Troll Bridge is burned. End of the matter for me. Maybe it catches on maybe it doesn't, it's of no importance. Scrolling is incredibly easy.

    Stig

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right... and the best policy is simply: Please Do Not Feed the Trolls.

    Ahhhh.. So now we just resort to childish name-calling and immature personal attacks, rather than addressing the point..

    You lose...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Right... and the best policy is simply: Please Do Not Feed the Trolls.

    I would ask you to PROVE your assertion...

    But I know that you are incapable of doing so, even though that is exactly what you demand of others...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Exactly...

    Thank you...

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Indicted or not indicted, Clinton could lose politically
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article87312972.html

    It's coming down to the wire, my friends...

    Joshua, you got your T-SHIRT ready?? :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not sure if you saw my comment a while back...

    http://rlv.zcache.com/trump_that_bitch_sleeveless_tee-r5c5a0c162904418cb80a539c0d946dc6_8nhmd_512.jpg?max_dim=350

    Don't spose I could get ya to wear THAT t-shirt, eh?? :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Happy Fourth, everyone..

    https://www.facebook.com/UncleSamsMisguidedChildren.Net/videos/517202021809135/

    If I had a nickel..... :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Deadliest attack in a year kills 115 in central Baghdad
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/62b113a9cf764acfa907a65506805e42/iraqi-officials-death-toll-claimed-car-bombing-iraqi

    But.... But.... But.....

    ISIS is "contained".... ISIS is the "JV"....

    Does anyone want to acknowledge the incompetence of the Odumbo Administration yet??

    I have an idea... Pretend it's an administration with a '-R' after the name..

    NOW what would you say??? :^/

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris, Paula, Michale, TS and everyone here ...

    Hope you all have a wonderful Fourth of July celebrating all that is good and not think at all about politics ... just have fun!

    I'll be watching A Capitol Fourth on PBS - no one does fireworks quite like that! Of course, Franki Valli won't be making an appearance but it should still be a great show. :)

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That would be Frankie Valli ...

  73. [73] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, gt, what's it all about?

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I hate drive-by links ...

  76. [76] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    EM-

    Happy belated Canada Day by the way... I really miss this time of year in the Northwest...

    I just found the piece written by a former RNC chair, one that resonates about why ,perhaps, Trump should not be the nominee.

    More importantly however, it resonated with me about something that is missing overall in this election cycle, Civil Decency.

  77. [77] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “They broke their word. In my opinion, they should never be allowed to run for public office again because what they did is disgraceful."

    Donald Trump commenting on Republican's who were dishonest about supporting whoever won the nomination but failed to endorse him after he became the nominee.

    This made me chuckle.

  78. [78] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Looks like I will be watching 4th o' J fireworks on PBS too. The Weather Channel shows a steady march of rainclouds for the next couple of days. Pity, because the only traveling I have to do to see a perfectly respectable show is to haul a couple of deck chairs into the garden and tilt my neck up.

    The best fireworks show I ever saw was in a little New Hampshire Village. You could taste the powder, and watch burning embers drift by. The occasional short round gave a nice 3-D effect. Not to worry, the fire dept. was on hand. The fire dept was lighting the fuses, or whatever was needed to fire the mortar bombs. Sometimes small is a whole lot better.

    Ohioans sitting in the grass to celebrate the 4th may be surprised to discover that chiggers have moved North and in great numbers. Given a choice between fire ants and chiggers, I think I'd opt for the ants. At least you fan see them coming and make an escape.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Given a choice between fire ants and chiggers, I think I'd opt for the ants. At least you fan see them coming and make an escape.

    Yikes!

  80. [80] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale [67],

    no. beside which, do you want to wear this?

    https://img1.etsystatic.com/126/0/11341943/il_570xN.892529251_qmmx.jpg

    JL

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And another kudos for going where no one else wanted to go..

    as you can see, that blade cuts both ways. i call it how i see it, no matter who that happens to agree with.

    JL

    When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation.
    ~Alexander Hamilton

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    @michale [67],

    no. beside which, do you want to wear this?

    I would agree to that because I know that I won't have to follow thru.. :D

    But I understand and asking you to change the agreed upon shirt is not worthy...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    Donald Trump commenting on Republican's who were dishonest about supporting whoever won the nomination but failed to endorse him after he became the nominee.

    This made me chuckle.

    He does have a point...

    Everyone would be saying the same thing ABOUT Trump if Trump had lost and didn't honor his commitment, right??

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    More importantly however, it resonated with me about something that is missing overall in this election cycle, Civil Decency.

    You mean like playground taunts?? THAT kind of civil decency???

    Don't get me wrong.. I fully agree with you. Civil decency, simple respect is very much missing from this election..

    I just find it funny that those who call for such things are part of the problem and not part of the solution...

    I just found the piece written by a former RNC chair, one that resonates about why ,perhaps, Trump should not be the nominee.

    If decency is one of the reasons why Trump shouldn't be the nominee, that certainly applies to Hillary, does it not??

    This is the exact hypocrisy I am talking about.. Ya'all slam and attack Trump for not being a perfectly decent human being, yet you support Hillary to the hilt when she is as bad, in not worse than Trump...

    Can you explain that?

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Hope you all have a wonderful Fourth of July celebrating all that is good and not think at all about politics ... just have fun!

    Thank you, Liz.. :D I am going to try, but there is so much going on, I will likely fail.. :D

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    as you can see, that blade cuts both ways. i call it how i see it, no matter who that happens to agree with.

    Yes, you do... :D

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you, Liz.. :D I am going to try, but there is so much going on, I will likely fail.. :D

    But if anyone wants to have NON-POLITICAL discussions....

    I am game.. :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange Menace talks about rape a lot. Now that somebody has filed a lawsuit against him for raping her when she was a 13 year old, this doesn't seem like such a good idea. He really should cancel that Mike Tyson speech at the RNC too. Shameful!

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    When you are ready to talk about all the rape allegations against Bill Clinton, INCLUDING under age girls, then.... AND ONLY THEN... will you have ANY credibility around here at all...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen & Liz,

    JFC is exactly why you see Hussein Odumbo around here so much..

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that somebody has filed a lawsuit against him for raping her when she was a 13 year old, this doesn't seem like such a good idea.

    The fact that it's a LAWSUIT tells you ALL that is needed to know about the factual nature of the allegations..

    Namely nothing but political opportunism..

    Nothing to see here... Move along..

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that somebody has filed a lawsuit against him for raping her when she was a 13 year old, this doesn't seem like such a good idea.

    The fact that it's a LAWSUIT tells you ALL that is needed to know about the factual nature of the allegations..

    Namely nothing but political opportunism..

    Nothing to see here... Move along..

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I love the smell of Republicans not taking personal responsibility in the morning!

  94. [94] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Fuhrer Drumpf has really jumped the shark with his Star of David tweet. I strongly suspect that he already has the Nazi vote locked up. Overkill!

  95. [95] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Billionaire" sockpuppet Trump has turned into quite the donor puppet just like the other Republican presidential contestants. Those high dollar donations to his "self-funded" scampaign are rolling in. Lucky for him, Trumpthugs are low info and they like his lies better than the truth. Cha-ching!

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    I love the smell of Republicans not taking personal responsibility in the morning!

    That's just my point. You want to hold Republicans responsible, but you give the Dems who do the same things or worse a pass..

    That's why you have NO credibility on this issue..

    Fuhrer Drumpf has really jumped the shark with his Star of David tweet. I strongly suspect that he already has the Nazi vote locked up. Overkill!

    As opposed to Hussein Odumbo who has the terrorist groups all loving him... :D

    Trumpthugs are low info and they like his lies better than the truth. Cha-ching!

    As opposed to crooked Hillary supporters such as yourself who don't care how many Americans Hillary kills...

    Once again.. No credibility and high hypocrisy..

    That's our JFC.. :D

    "I can do this all day..."
    -Steve Rogers, Captain America-CIVIL WAR

    :D

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    SCIENTISTS ARE FLIP-FLOPPING.. *NOW* GLOBAL COOLING IS THE NEW THREAT
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

    Who would have thunked it??

    Oh... wait... :D

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    TS [61] - I'm seriously looking into writing a Chrome plugin that scans the comments, detects the start/end tags, and omits the pointless filler. Sort of like Ad-Block - maybe I'll call it Dork-Block, but I'm open to suggestions.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sort of like Ad-Block - maybe I'll call it Dork-Block, but I'm open to suggestions.

    And, once again, we see the childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..

    Here's a thought.. Man up and actually ADDRESS the facts..

    It's a LOT more effective than trying to create a "safe space" where you are not exposed to the reality that you don't like..

    If you don't like different ideas and different points of view, then what the hell are you doing here???

    Go play at HuffPoop or DailyMoron where you have your echo-chamber and never have to think an independent thought ever...

    Duh....

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sort of like Ad-Block - maybe I'll call it Dork-Block, but I'm open to suggestions.

    And, once again, we see the childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..

    Here's a thought.. Man up and actually ADDRESS the facts..

    It's a LOT more effective than trying to create a "safe space" where you are not exposed to the reality that you don't like..

    If you don't like different ideas and different points of view, then what the hell are you doing here???

    Go play at HuffPoop or DailyMoron where you have your echo-chamber and never have to think an independent thought ever...

    Duh....

    Michale

  101. [101] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Neil M -97

    Let me know when you have working code and I'll help beta test :)

    Until then, I'll just work on modifying the payoff matrix driving the comments game. Starting with my little box in the matrix. Feeding trolls is more than just a waste of time, it drives a positive feedback loop providing pleasure to the troll. Attention is the cheese, don't throw more in the cage.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me know when you have working code and I'll help beta test :)

    Until then, I'll just work on modifying the payoff matrix driving the comments game. Starting with my little box in the matrix. Feeding trolls is more than just a waste of time, it drives a positive feedback loop providing pleasure to the troll. Attention is the cheese, don't throw more in the cage.

    Yep.. Looks like ya'all are still on the 3rd grade playground.. :^/

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump to Meet With Senator Joni Ernst, a Possible Running Mate
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/us/politics/joni-ernst-trump-vp.html?_r=0

    Now THAT's a helluva choice for VP....

    The only choice that would top that would be Condie Rice... But she is G'ouald, so I am not sure how good that would work..

    :D

    Michale...

  104. [104] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Does an accused child rapist really want to be in such close proximity to someone who has "Castrator" on her resume?

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does an accused child rapist really want to be in such close proximity to someone who has "Castrator" on her resume?

    I dunno.. When was Bill Clinton ever close to someone with "Castrator" on her resume??

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would give you the facts about this bogus claim against Trump...

    But why interrupt your Anti-Trump fantasies with.. yunno... FACTS....

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how, all of the sudden, ya'all want to talk about RAPE accusations....

    It's funny because there have been rape accusations against Bill Clinton for over 2 decades..

    Never wanted to talk about it then, eh??

    How come??? :D

    Ahhhhh That's right.. The power of the almighty -X....

    Could ya'all be anymore transparent??? :D

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You've got to be kidding. Claims against Bill Clinton have been litigated over and over, in redundant investigations for the last 30 years, wasting an amazing amount of time. The trouble is, Clinton haters refuse to accept the results coming out of multiple tribunals, committees, courtrooms, and investigations. Surely, the result of this latest Bengazi investigation is a perfect template, being the longest investigation by a congressional committee in history, and yielding nothing new or substantive, yet the righties, like a dog with a favorite bone, won't ever let go of it.
    Meanwhile, Trump has this friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a man described as an obsessive pedophile/sex addict, who is now a registered sex offender. Of him, Trump has said, “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”
    Even if you choose (for partisan reasons) not to believe the accuser, and those who have also offered testimony backing her claims, there's that sticky matter of the fact that Trump hung out with this guy for fifteen years despite the fact that, according to witnesses, Epstein's home was crawling with underage European girls, and artwork depicting underage girls was hanging on the wall. Raised no red flags, Don?
    Poor Donald has been roundly castigated about statements he's made about his own daughter, which might have just been inappropriately phrased, but could there be deeper truths hidden in those creepy statements?
    Trump's followers will forgive him for a lot - in fact, for way too much in the opinion of nearly everyone who isn't an acolyte, but will they forgive him for this? Stay tuned...

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's something to lend a little perspective to the chaos currently enveloping planet Earth ...

    NASA did it again, with perfection!

    The Juno spacecraft is now successfully orbiting Jupiter, the largest planet in our solar system. I just watched a fascinating news conference at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California where NASA scientists were discussing this stunning achievement.

    As Juno was approaching Jupiter, it took some amazing video of the Galilean moons orbiting the large planet over the course of about 17 days and NASA made a wonderful 3-minute movie speeding the whole process up showing, for the first time ever, the harmonic motion of celestial bodies.

    Who says the universe tends toward entropy!?

    You can check it out here:
    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/89231351

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Wasn't that awesome! You can't help but feel good for those folks working on this project when they got news that the solar arms were deploying (which meant it was in orbit and could start charging its batteries)!

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Meanwhile, Trump has this friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, a man described as an obsessive pedophile/sex addict, who is now a registered sex offender.

    You see, that's my point.

    Bill has had a LONGER friendship with that same obsessive pedophile/sex addict...

    Bill has been to Orgy Island dozens of time.. Flew on Epstein's LOLITA EXPRESS hundreds of times...

    But you don't want to talk about that, do you?? You don't want to talk about Bill's rapes and such, do you??

    Of course not.. Because it's not about rape or pedophilia...

    It's ONLY about Party Loyalty..

    Like I said, you don't know the FACTS of this latest BS accusation against Trump..

    You don't WANT to know the facts... You won't LISTEN to the facts..

    Because it's NOT about facts...

    It's about Party Loyalty and Party Loyalty only...

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's followers will forgive him for a lot - in fact, for way too much in the opinion of nearly everyone who isn't an acolyte, but will they forgive him for this? Stay tuned...

    Ahhhhh Another TRUMP is toast prediction.. yaaawwwnnnnn

    This is what?? The 10th??? 12th?????

    Yaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnn

    The FACTS clearly show that this accusation is nothing but a BS political hit job...

    This will simply make MORE Americans Trump supporters..

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump was putting women and minorities in Executive Positions long before it was politically correct for Democrats to yap and whine about it...

    Trump was supporting the gay community while the Clintons were making LAWS saying that marriage is between a man and a woman...

    No matter how you slice it, Trump is the Democrat's DREAM candidate...

    Except for that little '-R' after Trump's name...

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immigration fears boost Trump far from Mexican border
    High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfd425f8-3f0d-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#ixzz4DWUV9VDR

    “I don’t believe they should be letting in 165,000 Muslims they can’t check the background of,” said builder Ray Milford, 56, over lunch. “When government seems to be for everybody else other than the people who were born here, that’s sad.”
    Popular outrage over uncontrolled migration fuelled Britain’s recent vote to leave the EU. In rural Berlin, Trump supporters hope for a similar political convulsion in November. Mark McIver, 62, who helped organise April’s rally, sympathises with Brexit backers. “I do see the parallel,” he said. “I do feel the pain of being governed by a bureaucracy that’s out of touch, a bureaucracy that has a different agenda.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfd425f8-3f0d-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4DS1AlURi

    You see, this is what ya'all just don't get..

    Trump's message is in keeping with the opinions of over 70% of Americans...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immigration fears boost Trump far from Mexican border

    “I don’t believe they should be letting in 165,000 Muslims they can’t check the background of,” said builder Ray Milford, 56, over lunch. “When government seems to be for everybody else other than the people who were born here, that’s sad.”
    Popular outrage over uncontrolled migration fuelled Britain’s recent vote to leave the EU. In rural Berlin, Trump supporters hope for a similar political convulsion in November. Mark McIver, 62, who helped organise April’s rally, sympathises with Brexit backers. “I do see the parallel,” he said. “I do feel the pain of being governed by a bureaucracy that’s out of touch, a bureaucracy that has a different agenda.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfd425f8-3f0d-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0.html#axzz4DS1AlURi

    You see, this is what ya'all just don't get..

    Trump's message is in keeping with the opinions of over 70% of Americans...

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric rattles the campaign message of Clinton and unions

    PHILADELPHIA — Three dozen union workers gathered outside city hall here on Thursday to rally against the global free-trade deals they believe have harmed Americans like them. Their candidate was Katie McGinty, the Democrats’ nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. But their spiritual leader was Republican Donald Trump.

    “He recognized there’s some problems we need to solve,” said McGinty, who is challenging Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R), a free-trade advocate. “One, we have to stop bad trade agreements. .?.?. And two, we have to take the Chinese on when they manipulate their currency and dump goods in our markets.”

    Just two days earlier, Trump had delivered a blistering speech at an aluminum recycling plant near Pittsburgh in which he called U.S. trade policies a ­“politician-made disaster” that has betrayed the working class. McGinty, surrounded by electricians, pipe fitters and steelworkers, declared that while Trump usually spouts “nonsense,” he had, in this case, “recognized a couple of truths.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-anti-trade-rhetoric-rattles-the-campaign-message-of-clinton-and-unions/2016/07/04/45916d5c-3f92-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

    Unions... Once the very bulwark of the Democrat Party, are going for Trump en masse...

    I realize that the temptation to play ostrich is a strong one with the Left Wingery... But let's face the facts, my friends..

    If ya'all aren't worried that Hillary can't win...

    Ya'all are CLUELESS as to the facts and reality and/or are refusing to accept the facts and reality....

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    And don't forget the "little" matter of Hillary and/or Senior Staff being indicted for felony violations of the US Espionage Act and lying to the FBI...

    Do ya'all HONESTLY think that Hussein Odumbo's FBI is going to spend ALL that time and ALL those man-hours and then say, "Ooops.. Nothing here.. Our bad..."???

    Seriously!??

    If there was nothing to these allegations, Director Comey would have wrapped this up 10 months ago.. The mere fact that it has taken so long PROVES that there is something to these allegations.. Comey is too much the consummate professional LEO to carry on for this long and have NOTHING to show for it..

    There WILL be an indictment... This is all but a forgone conclusion..

    And, like I said above... If ya'all don't think that Trump can beat Hillary???

    Ya'all are ignorant of the facts and of reality... Or, more likely, ya'all just don't want to admit to the facts and admit to reality...

    But never fear... :D I'll be around to keep ya'all rooted in the facts and rooted in reality..

    It's the least I can do... :D

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules

    Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.
    http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

    There's your crime, people...

    Anyone who doesn't believe Clinton didn't commit any crimes is living in a fantasy world..

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Let me put it into a context that you can understand..

    This under-age sex accusation against Trump has less, MUCH less, credibility than the latest Clinton book, A CRISIS OF CHARACTER...

    You dismiss the allegations in the Clinton book, but you swallow hook, line and sinker the claims of this one person that has NO SUPPORTING evidence, hasn't even made the claims to ANYONE but her agent and refused to take a polygraph or be vetted by an EXPERT in the Jeffery Epstein case..

    Like I said.. For you, it's ALL about Party Loyalty.. NOTHING else matters.. Not the facts, not reality... nothing...

    It's all about the shiny, virtuous and pure '-D' after Clinton's name and the soulless, evil and dark '-R' after Trump's name..

    That's it.. That's the depth of your reasoning and "logic"....

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly.. Think about what you are doing...

    You are accusing a rape victim of lying base on *NOTHING* but the fact that you politically support the rapist..

    Now, I am not one to be judgmental, but that sounds... well, pretty bad....

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Enough said about this bullshit under-age sex claim against Trump...

    I think the point is clear..

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'll be watching A Capitol Fourth on PBS - no one does fireworks quite like that!

    Apparently, PBS doesn't do it like that either...

    PBS apologizes for Fourth of July broadcast that used previous years’ fireworks footage

    “A Capitol Fourth,” which broadcast Washington, D.C.’s fireworks Monday night, appeared to show fireworks in a clear night sky

    But the weather during this year’s Fourth of July show in D.C. was cloudy and overcast, and the show confirmed it used previous years’ footage

    After viewers complained, the show posted an apology on Twitter “for any confusion this may have caused”
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article87660482.html#storylink=cpy

    Who can blame them.. The Obama Administration fakes everything as well. Why shouldn't PBS follow suit.. :^/

    Michale

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    STUNNING FINAL ANALYSIS=>
    GOP Primary Turnout Up 62% This Year
    Dem Primary Turnout Down 21% This Year

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/final-analysis-gop-primary-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

    This oughta keep ya'all up at night... :D

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since the racist hate group (ONLY)BlackLivesMatter is once again spreading their racist hate and bile.... Let's slap them down....

    Liz, this is in your neck o the woods...

    I guess the Canadian OBLM morons are just as racist and just as hate-filled as those we have down here...

    Sorry.... :(

    The bullies of Black Lives Matter
    MARGARET WENTE

    Toronto’s legendary Pride Parade is a festival of inclusiveness – a good-natured rainbow coalition that embraces every letter of the LGBTQ alphabet. It’s so inclusive that even straight people march in it. Its message is: Loud, proud and unbowed. Nobody can bully us any more.

    Well, almost nobody. The new bully on the block is Black Lives Matter, a tiny group of noisy activists who borrow their branding and their belligerence from the United States. They’ve proved they can bully just about anyone, including city hall, the mayor and the provincial Premier. The Pride Parade was a pushover.

    Black Lives Matter was this year’s guest of honour at the Pride Parade. They graciously returned the favour by accusing their hosts of “anti-blackness,” and halting the parade until their demands were met.

    “We are under attack,” shouted Alexandria Williams, one of the Toronto group’s co-founders. “Pride Toronto, we are calling you out!” Ms. Williams said, as reported by the Toronto Star. She accused Pride of “a historical and current culture of anti-blackness” that is “deeply embedded in the festival.”

    You’d think, just weeks after the slaughter in Orlando, that they might have chosen to cede the spotlight to the dead and wounded, who really were under attack. But no. The Black Lives Matter activists are firmly convinced that they are at the very top of the pyramid of oppression. Only after the parade’s executives meekly agreed to all of their demands (basically, more money for their projects) did they allow the show to go on.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-bullies-of-black-lives-matter/article30746157/

    I guess racism and hate and moronic-ism knows no national boundaries... :^/

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    bill clinton

    and any female

    alone in a plane

    for a half hour?

    i'm sure they had a very deep... discussion.

    I know, I know... Bringing up this issue in redumbnant because we are all in complete agreement what a stoopid and moronic stunt it was..

    http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2016/07/03/20160701edsuc-a_s878x552.jpg?a8653cf9d8843d7df2783dcaf442c3bcb7dd3844

    But I just had to share that with you... :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    TheStig wrote:

    NASA production values just keep getting better! Juno's arrival more than makes up for this 4th's lack of fireworks. If I remember my mythology, Jupiter is not going to be pleased by Juno showing up. Somebody is going to get turned into something else.

  127. [127] 
    dsws wrote:

    What would Elizabeth Warren do if she wanted to stay in the Senate and not be VP, but also wanted to raise her media profile, expand her national donor list, and be certain that Donald Trump doesn't become president?

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Juno's arrival more than makes up for this 4th's lack of fireworks.

    And, per the norm, you TOTALLY miss the point.. :^/

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is it, people!!!

    BREAKING: After Hillary Interview, FBI Director to Make a Statement Tuesday
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/07/05/after-hillary-interview-fbi-director-to-make-a-statement-tuesday-n2188172

    Coming so soon after the her interrogation, this doesn't bode well for Hillary...

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    What would Elizabeth Warren do if she wanted to stay in the Senate and not be VP, but also wanted to raise her media profile, expand her national donor list, and be certain that Donald Trump doesn't become president?

    After today, I don't think it's going to matter one whit what Warren wants to do...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, let's take a quick sounding as to who is where..

    Near as I can recall, the following people have said that they would accept Comey's recommendation at face value.. In other words, if Comey recommends to indict, then they will concede that Hillary committed crimes..

    John M
    Liz
    Joshua
    Listen

    Did I miss anyone???

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll also make a pledge..

    If I am wrong... If there are NO indictments recommended..

    I pledge to remain here and take my lumps.... I won't run away and hide....

    Ya'all will be able to extract yer pound of flesh..

    This I promise.. :D

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who can blame them.. The Obama Administration fakes everything as well. Why shouldn't PBS follow suit.. :^/

    The host of the show apparently said that showing old footage was "the patriotic thing to do."

    Unbelievable. Frankly, the show didn't live up to its usual quality and the weather probably had a lot to do with that. But the unannounced fake footage to make it look better than it actually was is unacceptable and not good for the future of A Capitol Fourth.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the thing...

    The FBI is investigating Hillary because they have ample evidence to conclude that Hillary committed a crime..

    The fact that this announcement is coming so soon after Hillary's interrogation does not bode well for Hillary..

    If the FBI had learned of any new exculpatory facts that might show Hillary is innocent, it would have taken them a LOT longer than 2 days to check it out..

    The fact that the announcement is coming so soon indicates nothing in the interview cleared Hillary of the crimes that the FBI is investigating...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I pledge to remain here and take my lumps.... I won't run away and hide....

    Is that a threat?

    What you also must not do is call the investigation a sham or you might just as well run away and hide ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do. :)

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unbelievable. Frankly, the show didn't live up to its usual quality and the weather probably had a lot to do with that. But the unannounced fake footage to make it look better than it actually was is unacceptable and not good for the future of A Capitol Fourth.

    I know, right???

    I can understand if PBS made the announcement BEFORE the program..

    "Due to inclement weather, this presentation of A CAPITAL FOURTH will be a clip show"

    But the fact they tried to sneak one by the television audience??? Reprehensible...

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that a threat?

    heheheheheh A promise.. :D

    What you also must not do is call the investigation a sham or you might just as well run away and hide ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do. :)

    oh, no.. I made the same pledge ya'all made..

    We will accept Comey's recommendation w/o question or vilification...

    So say we all.... :D

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that a threat?

    heheheheheh A promise.. :D

    What you also must not do is call the investigation a sham or you might just as well run away and hide ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do. :)

    oh, no.. I made the same pledge ya'all made..

    We will accept Comey's recommendation w/o question or vilification...

    So say we all.... :D

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Also, keep in mind one thing..

    It's nearly universal that, if a jury comes back quickly, the verdict is nearly always GUILTY...

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Excellent.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is either going to be one of the best days of my life or one of the worst....

    We'll know in 20 minutes..

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Live Streaming of the Comey Announcement..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl_RDG-HI94&feature=youtu.be

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Holy crap, this is exciting! :D

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is it!!!!!

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    NO ONE in the government knows what Comey is going to say...

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    He has not given ANYONE a heads up as to his decision..

    That alone is unusual...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a good feeling...

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think Clinton is going to be campaigning today with Obama....

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    110 emails in 52 Email Chains were classified at the time the emails were sent..

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI found several thousand emails that were work-related that Hillary did NOT turn over to the State Dept...

    It's not looking good for Hillary...

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    A point in Hillary's favor...

    The FBI determined that Clinton did not intentionally delete emails to hide the information...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    There IS evidence that Clinton and staff were "very careless" in protecting classified information..

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    There IS evidence that Clinton and staff were "very careless" in protecting classified information..

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    NONE of these emails should have been on ANY unprotected private server....

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    And they just cut the live feed....

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, got it back..

    FBI determines it is possible that enemy had accessed Hillary's server...

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ohmygod....

    No charges being brought....

    That's it....

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am shocked.... Gabberflasted.... And thoroughly depressed... :^(

    But, I accept Director Comey's assertion....

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, I gotta go mow my lawn...

    Ya'all have at it and I'll check in, in a bit...

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, it's pretty surprising that the State Department is so lax in protecting sensitive and classified information.

    Hopefully, this will be a case of valuable lessons learned and the State Department will change its practices and policies.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did I say surprising? :)

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Not so surprising, actually.

  163. [163] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    And there goes Bernie's last hope...

    Heh.

    No Benghazi revelations, no indictment... it's a sad day in Rightwingistan, that's for sure...

    :-)

    -CW

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Benghazi revelations, no indictment... it's a sad day in Rightwingistan, that's for sure...

    Yea, go ahead and twist the knife.. :D

    But there are 2 silver linings..

    Crooked Hillary cannot claim she did nothing wrong..

    And Director Comey outlined perfectly why Hillary should NOT be President...

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, the REALLY bad news is...

    I am outta beer... :^(

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, Comey also pointed out that Hillary lied like a rug when she claimed that she sent no emails that were classified at the time...

    So, there are quite a few statements I can (AND WILL) hang my hat on.. :D

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    You just HAVE to know that Trump has a TON of ammunition, thanx to Director Comey... :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there goes Bernie's last hope...

    Yep.. Bernie will likely concede within a day or so...

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there goes Bernie's last hope...

    Yep.. Bernie will likely concede within a day or so...

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I join the ranks of the not surprised. The legal bar was very high.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/07/31/ftp355/#comment-62223

    Mind you, it's still a political football, but a deflated one. You can only cry wolf so often. The street verdict will probably break along political fault lines, so Clinton dodges the bullet. People at Fox News are probably weeping.

  171. [171] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's been a good week for wrapping up fake scandals. Now we can focus on Trump's neo-Nazi tweets.

  172. [172] 
    neilm wrote:

    Smug mode on.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    I join the ranks of the not surprised. The legal bar was very high.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/07/31/ftp355/#comment-62223

    Mind you, it's still a political football, but a deflated one. You can only cry wolf so often. The street verdict will probably break along political fault lines, so Clinton dodges the bullet. People at Fox News are probably weeping.

    I heard 'MILF' then what?? :D

    Michale

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Just to be clear for the record ... my lack of surprise is not related to there being no recommendation for charges.

    My surprise - or lack thereof - has to do with the inadequate policies and practices of the State Department when it comes to securing classified information. I hope they are working on correcting that situation.

  175. [175] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i suggest customink.com - less expensive, and you can put "i lost a bet" in small text underneath.

    ;)
    JL

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    i suggest customink.com - less expensive, and you can put "i lost a bet" in small text underneath.

    Naw, that would be cheating... heh

    Do you have the link for the actual T-Shirt??? Or just choose any Pro Hillary one you want... :D

    I pay my debts...

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Smug mode on.

    Yea, too bad you are already on record as not "feeding the trolls".... :D

    Sucks to be you, eh? heh :D

    Michale

  178. [178] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Comey also pointed out that Hillary lied like a rug when she claimed that she sent no emails that were classified at the time...

    Which were classified retroactively by another agency.

    In the end, it came down to a question of intent: did Clinton know that those subjects would be retroactively classified? No, of course not. Therefore, no crime was committed. The crime requires intent.

    Patraeus was a different matter. He knew he was sending classified information at the time he sent it. Still, Patraeus only got a fine and probation for it.

    The Trumpeteers are starting the week in terrible position. They have no money to run ads. Their party balloons (Bengazi & E-gate) have deflated, and no one wants to come to their party anyway - Trump will fill in speaker's slots with his own kids. That should be fun. With almost half the room full of friends of Ted (still sore that Trump told lies about Ted's dad), the urge to throw the sleazeball from Queens out on his wallet will be hard to resist.

  179. [179] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LIZ-158

    ..." it's pretty surprising that the State Department is so lax in protecting sensitive and classified information."

    Not if you have ever worked in a government establishment, as a fed employee or as a contractor.

    ...Hopefully, this will be a case of valuable lessons learned and the State Department will change its practices and policies."

    Hope springs eternal, but I'm betting very little will change. The system is too big, too clunky and too entrenched. Band Aids will be applied.

  180. [180] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's the link:

    http://www.zazzle.com.au/hillary_clinton_is_my_hero_t_shirts-235824806050508543

    but even in australian dollars that's way more expensive than it needs to be. customink will do it for 21 bucks and free shipping.

    JL

  181. [181] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    or if you know someone locally who prints shirts, that'd be fine as well. the word "hero" is non-negotiable though.

    like you, for the first two thirds of that speech i thought i'd be wearing a hillary for prison shirt.

    JL

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which were classified retroactively by another agency.

    Now, now now, let's not change recent history..

    Comey stated that 110 emails were classified AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT

    Hundreds more were "up classified"....

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    like you, for the first two thirds of that speech i thought i'd be wearing a hillary for prison shirt.

    I know, right??

    I thought for sure that's where it was going... You shoulda seen my face....

    I'll see if I can find a local place to get the T-shirt.. Hell, maybe I'll hit up the local HILLARY FOR PREZ group and see if I can get one for free!! heh

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    I actually felt a little bad after I read "No Charges" after I woke up. There are starving kids in Africa, yet Michael is stuck here eating more crow than is thought to be humanly possible!

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, Comey laid out quite succintly EXACTLY why Hillary should NOT be president...

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    I actually felt a little bad after I read "No Charges" after I woke up. There are starving kids in Africa, yet Michael is stuck here eating more crow than is thought to be humanly possible!

    Yea, yea, yea.... :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    One thing that I thought was comical was that Clinton's server was never actually hacked, but the State Dept.'s was. While not the defense you really want to go with in a situation like this, the information was actually shown to be safer on her private server than had it been on the DOD and State Dept servers.

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Yea, too bad you are already on record as not "feeding the trolls".... :D

    Sucks to be you, eh? heh :D

    You didn't HONESTLY think that a minor little thing like 'being wrong' would stop me from being my normal arrogant prick-ish self...

    Did you??? :D

    Michale

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    One thing that I thought was comical was that Clinton's server was never actually hacked,

    Actually, Comey said it was possible that it WAS hacked...

    That is sufficient to disqualify Hillary from being President...

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    While not the defense you really want to go with in a situation like this, the information was actually shown to be safer on her private server than had it been on the DOD and State Dept servers.

    And, since Hillary was the head of the State Dept, she gets dinged for BOTH her own hacked private server and the hacked State Dept servers... :D

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Comey stated that 110 emails were classified AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT. Hundreds more were "up classified"....

    I'm pretty sure that's debatable, otherwise they'd have recommended charges. They needed intent, and couldn't find it. End of story.

    This will have dissipated as a political issue by this time next week.

  192. [192] 
    neilm wrote:

    Now we get to wait to see what the next "scandal" the RWNJs will try to pin on Hillary. Not that they'll stop with the email or Benghazi!!! nonsense, but they need some fresh meat for the perpetually hungry.

    My guess is that in the interim we will get some Whitewater, a bit of Vince Foster (when will they let than poor family mourn in peace? - e.g. tweet from 9am pst 7/5/16: "Hey, she murdered Vince Foster and got away scot-free, so why wouldn't she get away with this? - @frankconniff"), a sprinkling of "no smoke without fire" sour grapes, and something about Bill and Monica.

    Mind you, with even Paul Ryan calling Trump out on anti-semitism, perhaps there will be some house cleaning required first before the next stone is thrown (to mix a metaphor).

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Surprising was the wrong word. Disturbing is a better description. But, in the wake of the WikiLeaks and Snowden dumps, it was actually moderately surprising.

  194. [194] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what comey actually said was that there was no evidence the private server was hacked, but that if it had been hacked there would likely be no evidence of it.

  195. [195] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LIZ - 172

    There is a fundamental tension between using classified information and protecting classified information. The surest protection is to destroy it, but that means you can't use it. Everything else is a gray area of utility vs security.

    Almost everybody agrees that there is way too much classified info. Inside the classified world, work tends to be taken seriously ONLY if it's tagged classified. Even if exactly the same information is available on the pages of Aviation Week and Space Technology. There is also the natural tendency to err on the side of caution....you don't tend to get slapped if you err on the side of too much transparency.

    So, what is adequate? It depends, it's a trade off. Tighter security costs more money, slows down agency reaction times etc. etc. Striking a balance is complicated. Clinton has found that out the hard way. As a lawyer (and a Clinton) I'm certain she knew the law gave her a lot of wiggle room. Political dynamics, not so much.

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Comey stated that 110 emails were classified AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT ... Hundreds more were "up classified"....

    Let's be precise and nail this down. Didn't Director Comey also say that only a few of these emails were actually marked as being classified?

  197. [197] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS[193]

    Excellent analysis.

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    I'm pretty sure that's debatable, otherwise they'd have recommended charges. They needed intent, and couldn't find it. End of story.

    It's NOT debatable.. Those were Director Comey's EXACT words...

    Liz,

    Let's be precise and nail this down. Didn't Director Comey also say that only a few of these emails were actually marked as being classified?

    No he did not..

    Look at my live blogging of the presser..

    110 emails in 52 Email Chains were classified at the time the emails were sent..

    Those were Comey's EXACT words...

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Actually, Comey said it was possible that it WAS hacked...

    In other words, experienced and technically savvy investigators could find no proof that it was. That would be a "no" in any other universe.

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    what comey actually said was that there was no evidence the private server was hacked,

    Comey said it was "possible" that hostile agents were able to penetrate Hillary's server...

    Com'on people.. Let's, for ONCE, forgo the spin and stay STRICTLY with what Director Comey said..

    Ya'all won, fer christ's sake! And you STILL need to spin???

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, experienced and technically savvy investigators could find no proof that it was. That would be a "no" in any other universe.

    So, if it's "possible" that a gun buyer might go out and shoot a dozen people, it's still OK to sell him a gun??

    :D

    Really???

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will have dissipated as a political issue by this time next week.

    Yea... And Benghazi will be a "non-story" after the 2012 Presidential Elections.. :D

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will have dissipated as a political issue by this time next week.

    Yea... And Benghazi will be a "non-story" after the 2012 Presidential Elections.. :D

    Oh, and this latest bullshit allegation will BURY Donald Trump!! :D

    Hay, at least *I* can admit when I was wrong..

    No one here (N.E.N.) can make the same claim..... :D

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.

    here's the full statement:

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

    JL

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    "You have to keep reading"
    -Bartleby, DOGMA

    :D

    Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    110 emails in 52 Email Chains were classified at the time the emails were sent..

    Retroactively, and by a different agency. He's being a bit cute with words to avoid an inter-agency fight. What it comes down to is the question: did Hillary know that she was sending classified information at the time she sent it? If the answer was anything but "NO", then they would have had to recommend charges, and they didn't. Intent.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    If you keep saying the same BS statement, it's STILL BS...

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.

    What part of AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT OR RECEIVED do you not understand???

    Michale

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    What it comes down to is the question: did Hillary know that she was sending classified information at the time she sent it?

    They WERE classified at they time they were sent..

    It's Hillary's job to KNOW what is and is not classified..

    You just proved that Hillary is not competent enough to be President...

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    If you keep saying the same BS statement, it's STILL BS...

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.

    What part of AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT OR RECEIVED do you not understand???

    Feel free to admit you were wrong..

    Com'on!!! Join the honored ranks of the N.E.N. :D

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Thanx for the link to the transcript..

    Considering that we're in a massive SPIN CYCLE, I am going to need it..

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Let's be precise and nail this down. Didn't Director Comey also say that only a few of these emails were actually marked as being classified?

    Are you OK with the precision???

    Michale

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I am curious...

    Does the fact that Hillary sent and received at least 110 emails that were classified (some of which were classified TOP SECRET) at the time they were sent/received....

    Does that fact change your mind about whether Hillary is qualified to be POTUS??

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Does that fact change your mind about whether Hillary is qualified to be POTUS??

    No. No charges, remember? I know that you just got the bad news, but you have to stay sharp. No charges. Nada. Nothing. Nothing more than a slap on the hand, at best. It's over, dude.

    Next investigation...

  214. [214] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I have answered you twice but the comments are not coming through, as of yet ... let's see if this one does ...

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    No. No charges, remember? I know that you just got the bad news, but you have to stay sharp. No charges. Nada. Nothing. Nothing more than a slap on the hand, at best. It's over, dude.

    I wasn't asking you, I was asking Liz..

    But, since you chimed in... Are you going to admit you were full of shit when you claimed that the 110 emails were "up classified"???

    Nothing.

    EXTREMELY CARELESS

    Server possible hacked

    Sent and received classified emails

    To someone who ONLY cares about Party Loyalty, I could see why they would say "NOTHING"...

    But to the vast majority of Americans (upwards of 70%) who care about the competence and integrity of our leaders??

    It's a great big SOMETHING...

    Director Comey just confirmed that Hillary is "extremely careless" and incompetent in that she can't recognize classified intelligence when she sees it..

    THAT is ALL the something...

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, this comment came through right away but, not the last two which were far more substantive ... and, without links, I might add??

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have answered you twice but the comments are not coming through, as of yet ... let's see if this one does ...

    :( NNL strikes again....

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does that mean that they will eventually appear?

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's what I don't get about Comey's statement..

    Comey puts a LOT of emphasis, nay, puts the WHOLE emphasis on "INTENT"....

    Comey claims that because Hillary didn't INTEND to compromise National Security, it doesn't reach to the level of prosecutable...

    But here is what I am confused about..

    INTENT has NOTHING to do with the relevant statutes....

    The ONLY elements required are negligence and classified..

    If you are negligent when handling classified intelligence, you CAN and SHOULD be prosecuted...

    The fact of your intent has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything...

    So, I have to admit that I am thoroughly confused by Director Comey's statements regarding INTENT...

    INTENT is not relevant...

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does that mean that they will eventually appear?

    Yea, probably..

    If you break it down by paragraphs, you can narrow down which paragraph is tripping the NNL filter..

    Michale

  221. [221] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I can't imagine anything I wrote tripping up the NNL filter, whatever that is ... :(

  222. [222] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They weren't non-brief comments, for goodness sake.

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, since you chimed in... Are you going to admit you were full of shit when you claimed that the 110 emails were "up classified"???

    I'll take that as a NO.... {{{sssiiigghhhhh}}}

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You need to review what the FBI Director said today.

    He said that only a few of the classified emails were actually marked as such.

    In any event, all of this goes to Hillary's competence and judgement.

    Either she is not capable of distinguishing between classified and unclassified subject matter, regardless of whether said material was marked as classified - which, for a Secretary of State, would indicate a certain level of incompetence and poor judgement - OR she is being far less than truthful when she insists that she never sent/received emails containing classified material and she thinks the rest of us are stupid.

    A lose-lose situation for her.

    If Hillary was running against a Republican candidate who did not daily exhibit his own very special brand of poor and ill-informed judgement and serious questions about his knowledge base and other qualifications, then this presidential election might have a whole other set of dynamics.

    Bottom line - American voters must make a choice between two flawed major party candidates, a Libertarian ticket, and a Green Party candidate, the latter two dependent on their names being included on state ballots.

    I would submit that the Republican candidate is the least qualified candidate for POTUS and leader of the free world.

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't imagine anything I wrote tripping up the NNL filter, whatever that is ... :(

    NNL means NEVER NEVER LAND.... It's my nickname for CW's filters.... A homage to 7 DAYS, if you will.. :D

    The filters work on a principle of a certain combinations of consonants and vowels.. It's not really known exactly what trips them up..

    In the early days of Weigantia (circa 2008ish) you couldn't type in a TAYLOR MARSH website to save your life.... :D

    They'll appear soon...

    Michale

  226. [226] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, (in multiple parts!)

    You need to review what the FBI Director said today.

    He said that only a few of the classified emails were actually marked as such.

  227. [227] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you are negligent when handling classified intelligence, you CAN and SHOULD be prosecuted....

    the exact words comey used, and i believe also in the statute, are "grossly negligent." lacking intent, it's the "grossly" part that was missing, which fits his later statement,

    "All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

    the phrase, "vast quantities" boldfaced by me; presumably 113 emails was not a vast enough quantity to be considered "grossly" negligent.

    JL

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I'll just demonstrate my unlimited patience.

    That was a little joke.

  229. [229] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    INTENT is not relevant...

    It actually is relevant in cases involving mishandling of classified information, apparently.

    P.S. Still waiting (patiently) for those other comments to appear ... :(

  230. [230] 
    apophis wrote:

    KUDOS to Mr Clinton for taking Lynch out of the equation. Well played Sir. Only thing left to ponder is when Lynch realized she had been had.

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    the exact words comey used, and i believe also in the statute, are "grossly negligent."

    "grossly negligent"???

    "extremely careless"??

    6 of one, half dozen of the other..

    "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference..."
    -Spock

    "All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;

    But that's my point..

    INTENT is not mentioned in the relevant statues whatsoever...

    As I have stated time and time again, INTENT is completely irrelevant to the crimes being investigated..

    Michale

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    It actually is relevant in cases involving mishandling of classified information, apparently.

    No, it's not...

    THAT is what is so perplexing...

    INTENT has NOTHING to do with it..

    Michale

  233. [233] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Are filters really necessary here at CW.com?

  234. [234] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I have heard otherwise from lawyers familiar with these types of cases.

  235. [235] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    INTENT is not mentioned in the relevant statues whatsoever...

    Do you have a link for those?

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    TITLE 18 Section 793(f)
    U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 793
    18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

    Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    THAT is the statute...

    NOTHING about intent whatsoever...

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

    Section F is what Hillary was investigated for...

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are filters really necessary here at CW.com?

    Yer asking the wrong person..

    But I am certain that they are, else they would not be there.... It's just MORE work for CW maintaining them.. That tells me they are necessary...

    Michale

  239. [239] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No he did not ...[say that only a few of the emails were actually marked as classified]..Look at my live blogging of the presser..

    Now THAT is funny! :)

    Not according to your live blogging, eh? Hehheheheh

  240. [240] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.
    ~legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

    so i guess "conscious and voluntary" means intent?

    JL

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face reality here, my friends..

    Other than clearing Hillary of CRIMINAL wrongdoing (no small thing, I grant you) Director Comey's presser was DEVASTATING to Hillary Clinton..

    Made all the more devastating by the fact that Comey came off completely and 1000% unbiased and impartial..

    And here is this 1000% unbiased and impartial FBI Director stating FOR THE RECORD that Clinton was "extremely careless" and that her actions made it "possible" for our enemies to read EVERYTHING going thru the US State Department...

    Director Comey laid out in logical, rational and, above all else, NON-POLITICAL way that Hillary Clinton is not competent to be POTUS...

    And, you can bet that, when President Trump is sworn in, the FIRST thing he is going to do is re-open this case...

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    so i guess "conscious and voluntary" means intent?

    Yes, you could spin it that way..

    But, it's only spin..

    Yer really reaching here, JL... :D

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not according to your live blogging, eh? Hehheheheh

    Well, we have the actual transcript now... :D

    Michale

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    so i guess "conscious and voluntary" means intent?

    If "conscious and voluntary" were elements of Title 18, Section 793(f), then you would have a point..

    But they are not so you don't...

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, are you sure you're looking at the right statute ... the one the FBI investigation is based on?

  246. [246] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Isn't this the pertinent section of the US code...

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

  247. [247] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @237/239,

    there are two aspects of law in the united states, statute and precedent. if conscious and voluntary are part of the definition of gross negligence in the case law, then that applies to every statute that uses the term. it may seem like splitting hairs to you, but that's the definition. i'm not redefining "is" here.

    JL

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't this the pertinent section of the US code...

    No, that deals with DISCLOSURE..

    "It's called DISCLOSURE, ya dickhead!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    heh :D

    That was what General Patraeus was prosecuted under in addition to 793(f)...

    Michale, are you sure you're looking at the right statute ... the one the FBI investigation is based on?

    Yes, because it's the relevant one that deals with people who are "custodians" of classified intelligence..

    Patreaus was prosecuted under 793(f) as the custodian of the classified intelligence and 798 due to his disclosure of said classified intelligence to an unauthorized party..

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL.

    Negligence = Careless

    Gross = Extreme

    Your own definition uses EXTREME to define "gross"...

    This is simply a case of a difference MAKING no difference...

    Michale

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The full text of the relevant statute is listed in comment #232...

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said, NO WHERE is INTENT any part of the statute..

    So, I wonder what Director Comey was going on about...

    Michale

  253. [253] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @245,

    you can't apply lay definitions to legal definitions. that's like saying a "red herring" must be both red and a herring.

    here's a more detailed explanation from legaldictionary.net:

    http://legaldictionary.net/gross-negligence/

  254. [254] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @245,

    you can't apply lay definitions to legal definitions. that's like saying a "red herring" must be both red and a herring.

    JL

  255. [255] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  256. [256] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    NNL ate my link with specific examples, but you can google "gross negligence examples" yourself.

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    you can't apply lay definitions to legal definitions.

    I'm not..

    I am simply replying to your comment #236 where you attempted to apply a lay definition to a legal definition. :D

    Gross is a sufficient synonym for Extremely..

    Careless is a sufficient synonym for Negligence..

    He was grossly negligent....

    He was extremely careless....

    Pretty much means the same thing...

    Unless you want to dissect what the meaning of "was" is.... :D

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "conscious and voluntary" and "intent" are related legal terms. the online legal dictionary says gross negligence is seen by judges as being so extreme that it is "bordering on intentional conduct"

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, the gross/extreme, careless/negligent debate, while utterly fascinating, is not really relevant to the INTENT discussion...

    The statute doesn't require INTENT to prosecute...

    So, why does Director Comey cite lack of intent as the reason to recommend non-prosecution??

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the words careless, reckless and negligent each have specific legal definitions. i doubt it was an accident that director comey used the word careless, rather than reckless or negligent. calling them synonyms may be a talking point politically, but is not true legally.

  261. [261] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @252,

    the statute requires EITHER intent OR gross negligence, OR a number of other things that aren't relevant to the case. i think he was explaining how they explored all possible avenues for criminal charges.

    JL

  262. [262] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz 195-

    Thanks, you get fairly good at something with 30+ years of practice. Analysis paid the bills, but I like field work better :)

  263. [263] 
    Michale wrote:

    the words careless, reckless and negligent each have specific legal definitions. i doubt it was an accident that director comey used the word careless, rather than reckless or negligent.

    Director Comey used "careless" because he would have looked like an idjut when saying "negligent" is required for the statute, and then used "negligent" to describe Clinton's actions...

    Careless and negligent are close enough as to be interchangable...

    But again, that's not the point..

    If Director Comey felt that the distinction between "careless" and "negligent" was sufficient NOT to warrant prosecution, he would have said so..

    "While Clinton's actions were CARELESS, they weren't NEGLIGENT and, because of that, I am recommending that no charges be brought..."

    But Director Comey did NOT state that..

    He stated that because he couldn't prove INTENT, that he is not recommending charges...

    But INTENT has nothing to do with the relevant statute...

    THAT's the point..

    Michale

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    the statute requires EITHER intent OR gross negligence,

    Show me...

    Show me were INTENT is part of the relevant statute..

    Michale

  265. [265] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note, I guess Balthasar bailed rather than admit he was wrong about the classified emails... {sssiigghhhhhh}

    Michale

  266. [266] 
    Michale wrote:

    Show me...

    Show me were INTENT is part of the relevant statute..

    Yes, using a variety of sources, you can INFER just about anything you want...

    But the statute does not require INTENT to be applicable...

    It's a mystery why Director Comey would cite THAT as his reason not to prosecute....

    Michale

  267. [267] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way...

    If someone dies due to another "gross negligence" then that would be manslaughter....

    To be MURDER, intent would have to be established...

    According to your position, gross negligence ESTABLISHES intent...

    That's just not reality...

    Michale

  268. [268] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    parts a through c of the statute begin with, "for the purpose of," section b says "with like intent." parts d and e say "willfully" twice:

    "Willfully means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In other words, the defendant must have acted voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something that the law forbids; that is to say, with a purpose either to disobey or disregard the law."

    and part f discusses gross negligence and failure to report.

  269. [269] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    apparently rudy giuliani agrees with you about gross negligence and extreme carelessness.

  270. [270] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    According to your position, gross negligence ESTABLISHES intent...

    no, the law dictionary says it is so extreme that it is "bordering on" intent. like if a doctor is supposed to remove an appendix and instead amputates a leg.

  271. [271] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I'm guessing that CW is having a fun filled day writing up the Comey Press Conference. I can't wait to see it. If you imagine Homer J. leaping from foot to foot, that's pretty much me....but with less bulk, and more hair.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03C4tnCFEMQ

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    parts a through c of the statute begin with, "for the purpose of," section b says "with like intent." parts d and e say "willfully" twice:

    And if any of those sections were relevant to the Clinton case, you would have a point...

    But, again... Well, you know where that is going.. :D

    Michale

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Just so I know you are not totally lost.. :D

    Can I get a concession on #204?? :D

    Michale

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    apparently rudy giuliani agrees with you about gross negligence and extreme carelessness.

    "Agent K is a very wise man"
    -Agent O, MEN IN BLACK 3

    :D

    Any normal person not enslaved by Party Ideology would know that the two phrases are completely interchangeable...

    Granted that may not apply to Rudy...

    He is far from normal.. :D heh

    Michale

  275. [275] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Don't look now, but you are vilifying Director Comey's recommendations.

    As for my missing comments, I think you will appreciate them but I can't wait any longer for them to appear so it's over and out for me until much later tonight or tomorrow, pending the posting of missing comments.

  276. [276] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar [204],

    is there any evidence to support your claim regarding the 113 emails that contained information classified at the time clinton sent them? if i understand correctly, you're saying that state didn't yet know the information was classified because of conflict or faulty sharing of information between different agencies? surely that can't have been the case for all of the e-mails, can it?

    director comey said that hillary should have identified that information was sensitive regardless of whether or not it was marked. is that not so?

    @michale,

    the difficulty i encounter whenever i agree with you on something is that you tend to overgeneralize the specific area of agreement far beyond anything i suggested. therefore i'm going to wait and see before i give a firm answer.

    @liz,

    good point! for someone who promised he wouldn't second-guess director comey's decision, he sure is doing a poor job of it...

    ;)
    JL

  277. [277] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So this is what the right is left with, eh? Arguing minute points of law with each other. I heard Guliani say that this afternoon, and it had the sound of something he had his staff look up.

    Trouble is, just a few days ago, the Right cried and kicked their feet until the Attorney General promised to take her prosecutors out of it completely and abide by the recommendations of Comey. So you're stuck with it, legal tit-a-tat notwithstanding.

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Don't look now, but you are vilifying Director Comey's recommendations.

    Not at all..

    I am just confused by them as he cited reasoning that is not relevant...

    Balthasar,

    So this is what the right is left with, eh?

    How about that Hillary was "EXTREMELY CARELESS" with National Security..

    How about that 70% of Americans think Hillary is a liar...

    That works for me.. :D

    JL,

    the difficulty i encounter whenever i agree with you on something is that you tend to overgeneralize the specific area of agreement far beyond anything i suggested.

    OK, I'll be specific..

    Can we agree that Director Comey stated that it was possible that hostile actors could have hacked into Hillary's email server?

    Michale

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    @balthasar [204],

    is there any evidence to support your claim regarding the 113 emails that contained information classified at the time clinton sent them? if i understand correctly, you're saying that state didn't yet know the information was classified because of conflict or faulty sharing of information between different agencies? surely that can't have been the case for all of the e-mails, can it?

    Are you asking me or Balthasar???

    The reason I ask is because you address Balthasar, but you cite my comment...

    Michale

  280. [280] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    a different comment of mine that may have been lost in the mix, a large percentage of law is not about statute but case law. prosecuting a case isn't just about title 18, section 793, parts a-g; it's also case law and precedent; what judges have decided in the past, when applying the law in specific cases.

    comey says:
    "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."
    i.e. there's no precedent to support criminal prosecution, and the case probably wouldn't stick.

    if i had to speculate based on his subsequent statement about security or administrative sanctions, he probably suspects she's guilty. but he's also saying the evidence wouldn't support a case for that belief.

    JL

  281. [281] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @272,

    204 was balthasar's comment, not yours.

    JL

  282. [282] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Can we agree that Director Comey stated that it was possible that hostile actors could have hacked into Hillary's email server?

    yes, he said it and he's right, it's very possible. i'd even go beyond that and say it's more probable than not that the server was hacked at least once.

    JL

  283. [283] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From Director Comey's remarks,

    "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

    "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

    These two paragraphs should help to clear up Michale's confusion over the relevance of intent.

  284. [284] 
    Michale wrote:

    good point! for someone who promised he wouldn't second-guess director comey's decision, he sure is doing a poor job of it...

    I am no more "vilifying" Director Comey than ya'all are "vilifying" me when you ask me to explain my positions and comments...

    See???

    Michale

  285. [285] 
    Michale wrote:

    than ya'all are "vilifying" me when you ask me to explain my positions and comments...

    Oh.. wait.. :D

    Michale

  286. [286] 
    Michale wrote:

    These two paragraphs should help to clear up Michale's confusion over the relevance of intent.

    Thanx Liz...

    So, basically, what Director Comey is doing is citing PRECEDENT, not the rule of law...

    I still disagree with it, but at least that shows he didn't just pull something out of his ass..

    Which I NEVER thought he did....

    Thank you, Liz.. :D

    Michale

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil, Balthasar...

    Sanders supporters melt down over FBI's Clinton decision
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/bernie-sanders-fbi-hillary-clinton-email/index.html

    Looks like it's the SANDERS supporters who have the BIGGEST problem with the Comey decision...

    Not the Right Wingers..

    Too bad ya'all can't blame that on the Right, eh??? I feel for ya, buddies.. :D

    You poor guys... :D

    Michale

  288. [288] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thank you, Liz.. :D

    Just wait until you see my missing comments, Michale! You're gonna think you died and went to heaven, or something. :)

  289. [289] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said at the beginning of this... And no one has been able to refute, I might add...

    The *ONLY* silver lining out of this presser for Hillary is that she is not going to be indicted...

    90% of Comey's presser was DEVASTATING to Hillary.....

    Michale

  290. [290] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just wait until you see my missing comments, Michale! You're gonna think you died and went to heaven, or something. :)

    Now i am REALLY excited!! :D

    Michale

  291. [291] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    yes, he said it and he's right, it's very possible. i'd even go beyond that and say it's more probable than not that the server was hacked at least once.

    Thank you....

    "Detente.. It's a wonderful thing."
    -Maureen Robinson, LOST IN SPACE

    :D

    Michale

  292. [292] 
    Michale wrote:

    The *ONLY* silver lining out of this presser for Hillary is that she is not going to be indicted...

    90% of Comey's presser was DEVASTATING to Hillary.....

    FBI Director Comey Obliterated These Hillary Talking Points
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-comey-obliterated-these-hillary-talking-points/

    THAT is what Americans are going to remember..

    Not that Hillary wasn't indicted..

    But that she lied, continuously and constantly...

    Michale

  293. [293] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes, he said it and he's right, it's very possible. i'd even go beyond that and say it's more probable than not that the server was hacked at least once.

    Maybe Balthasar will learn from your example... :D

    Michale

  294. [294] 
    Michale wrote:

    Probably not if I hound him, eh? :D

    Michale

  295. [295] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: Ha!
    That is all.

  296. [296] 
    Paula wrote:

    For everyone else: I think Comey was a prick. He had to throw in "careless" and some innuendos which provide fodder for the fever swamp. It wasn't enough to just come out with the truth: Clinton had no criminal intent or negative intentions of any kind. This was about rules and systems that are anti-people -- that are raised up as being more important that the purposes for which they are put in place. Meanwhile, the usual suspects rode this as long and far as possible, and will continue to ride it into the future because they like believing bullshit about the Clintons and Democrats.

    However, in the end the predictions of people who knew what they were talking about turned out to be right. They were always dependent, though, on the people on the other end -- in this case Comey and gang -- being reasonably principled. Comey had to be willing to follow the facts and precedent, etc. which he appeared to do, even it it left a bitter taste in his mouth.

  297. [297] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Michale: Ha!
    That is all.

    You've earned it.. :D

    For everyone else: I think Comey was a prick.

    Now THAT was decidedly NOT earned.. :D

    Clinton had no criminal intent or negative intentions of any kind.

    Intent is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the rule of law...

    As I said, Comey refuted, WITH FACTS, every one of Clinton's lies...

    That will sink her campaign almost as bad as an indictment would have...

    Michale

  298. [298] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It wasn't enough to just come out with the truth: Clinton had no criminal intent or negative intentions of any kind.

    The truth of the matter extends much further than that, Paula, as Director Comey amply enunciated.

  299. [299] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just a heads up to everyone.. I will likely be in bed by the time CW puts out his next commentary..

    Don't mistake my lack of response for any kind of humility (heh) or un-interest.... :D

    I WILL be checking back for Liz's awesome comments as well.. :D

    Michale

  300. [300] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, comments have been restored... sorry for the delay.

    The filters are necessary. You wouldn't believe the volume of spam they catch!

    Anyway, looks like this comment thread is paying the price for me not posting a re-run yesterday (the barbeque called, I answered, the post got forgotten... mea culpa!).

    Have we ever been above 300 before??

    -CW

  301. [301] 
    Paula wrote:

    [297] E: Director Comey said no one would indict on the basis of what they found/determined. He threw a lot of other stuff out there but also failed to discuss a number of issues such as the fact that the State Dept servers have been hacked apparently several times; the IT systems are outdated and extremely cumbersome; the Repubs refuse to fund the government in a timely and responsible manner; the standards people are required to meet are unrealistic given other constraints, etc. Context is everything.

  302. [302] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale ... one of those awesome comments is now up, ICYMI ...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/07/01/ftp398/#comment-78491

  303. [303] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    @nypoet22 [269]:

    Clinton said, "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

    So from Comey's conference this afternoon:

    "Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

    Perhaps so. But "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information" isn't the same as "were marked classified", and that distinction is important when trying to prove a case of either negligent or willful passing of classified information.

    Moreover, it is well known that whether or not a document should have been classified in the first place is a real matter of contention between the agencies. Even after Hillary left office, the State department has disagreed with, for instance, the Intelligence Community Inspector General on the proper classification of documents found among the emails. To this, the IGIC said,
    "ODNI and CIA classification experts judged the email as probably classified SECRET//NOFORN based on the State Department Classification Guide; However; they deferred to State Department for final adjudication. So, we said from the start it’s State's call on classification."

    In otherwords, we punt on this one, but chalk us down as disagreeing.

    How did Comey resolve the interagency dispute on this matter?

    "Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”)." (Emphasis added)

    In other words, agencies other than the State Department were, in some cases, making the determination that such-and-such an email were classified, or top secret, or whatever, at the time. Another group of emails were determined to be 'underclassified' at the time, and were "up-classified" later. By the way, all that was >not the determination of the top lawyers at State who cleared Clinton of all wrongdoing.

    That didn't stop the bias of those other agencies towards the DC culture of over-classification from creeping into this report. At one point, Comey says:

    "While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."

    No shit, it's the State Department, not the CIA.
    But the lawyers at State were the ones who made a lot of those decisions, and their opinions clear Hillary - because if the State Department lawyers think that she's on the right side of the law, how can she be prosecuted for willful criminal intent? Was she supposed to ignore her own lawyers?

    At worst, they think they found 8 out of 60,000 emails that might be deemed 'top secret', and that's probably not State's assessment of their proper classification, so we come to Comey's last point:

    "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." (emphasis added)

    Does a handful of possibly mis-classified emails out of 60,000 constitute an inference of intentional misconduct? In Comey's opinion, no.

  304. [304] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, Paula, context IS everything. Without it, Hillary would probably have been indicted.

    Ignoring the very serious lapse in judgement displayed by Secretary Clinton and outlined by Director Comey is precisely the kind of attitude that will prevent the State Department from improving the way it handles classified subject matter.

    It was hard to watch the state department spokesman today try to describe an agency that has no problem with handling sensitive and classified information. Unfortunately, he echoes your dissatisfaction with Director Comey and similarly refuses to admit that there is a problem.

  305. [305] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wow. sorry my last post came so late and was so long. While I was marshaling cites, you folks covered most of that material, so you have my apology.

  306. [306] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oop. comment [303] should have begun @nypoet [276]

    @Paula: you have said it more succinctly than I:
    Context is everything.

  307. [307] 
    Paula wrote:

    [303] Great rundown Balthasar!

    [304]: Elizabeth: I'm quite sure Hillary has been properly sensitized to the gravity of email security issues and may be able to actually do something about it all when President.

  308. [308] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You may be right about that, Paula.

  309. [309] 
    Paula wrote:

    [297] Michale: "You've earned it".
    Thanks! (I agree!)

  310. [310] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I wish I could find the article I read that did a wonderful job of explaining the different levels of classification that each of the different government agencies use, and how they all treat the same information very differently! For example: if an email sent from a person working at an US embassy is sent to someone at the FBI, nothing may need to be redacted. However, if that State Dept. email is sent to someone at the CIA, the embassy employee's name is redacted by the CIA and the email is deemed "classified" as they may be secretly working as a CIA operative. If this same email is forwarded to someone at the DOD, it may be given an even higher classification and requests for copies will be denied. So one email can have three different security classifications depending on which agency is being asked to release it.

  311. [311] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Balthasar [303] Great post!

  312. [312] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Great as in decidedly non-brief. :)

  313. [313] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I'm quite sure Hillary has been properly sensitized to the gravity of email security issues and may be able to actually do something about it all when President.

    Actually, I think you're on to something.

    Perhaps Hillary should meet this FBI assessment head on, admitting her failures of judgement and taking the discussion to a higher level in terms of over-classification and improving the security culture at the State Department.

    I mean, Trump isn't going to let up with his criticism and counterfactual arguments so I think Hillary could make a big win out of this issue ...

  314. [314] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    agreed. admitting to a mistake is only the first of many steps in fixing it.

    JL

  315. [315] 
    Paula wrote:

    [313] E: yes, there are ways Hillary could play this that could help her. Obama might be able to assist on that front too -- he also could have a meeting about those issues, or a press conference, etc. We'll see.

    Separately, I don't think whatever Trump has to say about it will mean much in terms of swaying people. (Anyone who takes Trump seriously is probably not reachable, period.) More important might be Bernie's response. Might.

  316. [316] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Here's an anecdote for you ... not sure which news channel I saw this on but a seemingly intelligent, well-spoken young women said that there are things that Donald Trump has said that she finds ... her word was "scary" ... but, despite that, she would probably vote for him because Hillary is a worse choice.

    Also, what do you think about the notion that a lot of people secretly anticipate voting for Trump but would never admit it to even an anonymous pollster let alone in public when asked? In other words, are the polls showing a lower percentage for Trump than we may ultimately see on election day and does that concern you?

  317. [317] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    I think, more than just admitting she made a mistake, which she has essentially already done, she must explain concretely how she could have made those mistakes. I can imagine a quite plausible explanation if given in full and with the utmost transparency, regardless of how poorly her handling of her emails reflects on her. She could conceivably turn this into one of those moments of vulnerability where she empathizes with and understands why so many voters say she is untrustworthy.

    I think the worst thing she could do is run away from this now that charges won't be filed, assuming Justice accepts Comey's recommendation.

  318. [318] 
    Paula wrote:

    [316] E: does it concern me? Of course it does! But, honestly, I actually do believe there are fewer American idiots than American non-idiots. I don't think there's a large percentage of people who are stupid enough to vote for Trump but not willing to admit it -- being willing to vote for Trump is a clear indication the person lacks self-awareness or other-awareness. No doubt there are a few.

    The die-hard Hillary-haters are mostly righties -- I believe the majority of lefty-Hillary-haters will hold their noses. Some will throw their votes away on Jill Stein etc. But it all boils down to the people who are motivated enough to actually vote. Hillary-supporters like myself are taking nothing for granted and there is going to be a helluva ground game. Obama is aggressively campaigning for Hillary which I think will help tremendously. We have conventions coming up and Trump's is shaping up to be pretty disastrous -- we'll see. Hopefully Bernie won't screw things up -- again, we'll see.

    For all that people focus on Hillary's unfavorables, she has also been very popular at times. Her numbers are not cast in cement. So I remain cautiously optimistic.

  319. [319] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    does it concern me? Of course it does! But, honestly, I actually do believe there are fewer American idiots than American non-idiots.

    Heh.

    Everything else you mentioned was pretty reassuring, too!

    I guess my concern rises everytime a fellow Canadian tells me that they think Trump is the best thing since sliced bread. It really surprises me how many times I have encountered the attitude that Trump will be good for the US economy. Of course, when I ask how exactly the answer always involves the "fact" that he is a "successful businessman who tells it like it is"!

    Very cautiously optimistic is the way to go and not take anything for granted. I'd love to be in the Hillary campaign "war room" when they discuss the best-in-class strategy against Trump ...

  320. [320] 
    Paula wrote:

    [319] I'd love to be in the Hillary campaign "war room"..

    So would I!

  321. [321] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She would get some great advice, that's for sure! :)

  322. [322] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    @Paula [307] & ListenWhenYouHear [311], Thanks!

    Elizabeth Miller [312]: I know. Sorry.

    ListenWhenYouHear [310]: Exactly.

    Paula [301] and [304]: Y'know, it keeps coming back to the GOP's hostility to the State Department which keeps it, despite the huge significance of its mission, perennially underfunded. Despite being as important as(many would say more important than) the Defense Department, which eats 16% of the federal budget, the State Department gets about 1%.

  323. [323] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You are dealing here with the former Queen of multiple non-brief comments. Ahem.

    While I still have my moments, I have been labouring under some rather bad influences ... who simply refuse to read my excessively long, multiple-part comments and so I have been somewhat restrained. :(

  324. [324] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You make a very salient point about the dangerous lack of resources devoted to diplomacy as compared to the war machine.

    As a former Secretary of State, a Hillary Clinton administration should take the lead on beginning to correct that imbalance.

  325. [325] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Despite being as important as(many would say more important than) the Defense Department, which eats 16% of the federal budget, the State Department gets about 1%.

    I think the disparity is much, much worse than that, isn't it?

  326. [326] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    agreed. admitting to a mistake is only the first of many steps in fixing it.

    Which is why things never change around here.. :D

    Balthasar totally blew a comment above and argued with me for several comments..

    Once I quoted EXACTLY what Director had stated and PROVED Balthasar wrong, did he admit his mistake??

    Of course not...

    That's very annoying to me...

    Michale

  327. [327] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    He said that only a few of the classified emails were actually marked as such.

    MARKINGs don't matter.. It's the originating agency that determines classification, not any arbitrary mark on the intelligence...

    As SecState it was Clinton's duty to KNOW what was and was not classified..

    Now, if you want to concede that Clinton was incompetent for not knowing what was and was not classified, then I will agree with you..

    But a document not being marked as classified is not a valid defense...

    In any event, all of this goes to Hillary's competence and judgement.

    Exactly!!!

    DING DING DING, we have a winner!!! Tell 'er what she's won, Johnny!!!!

    It does indeed go to ALL of that and so much more...

    Either she is not capable of distinguishing between classified and unclassified subject matter, regardless of whether said material was marked as classified - which, for a Secretary of State, would indicate a certain level of incompetence and poor judgement - OR she is being far less than truthful when she insists that she never sent/received emails containing classified material and she thinks the rest of us are stupid.

    A lose-lose situation for her.

    Exactly!! Which is what I said above, so I might as well erase that. :D heh I guess I need to read the ENTIRE comment before commenting.. :D But when I do that I sometimes lose my thoughts on what I wanted to say, when...

    So please forgive the above.. :D I'll leave it all in place so you can understand my thought process and progression..

    As SecState it was her JOB to know what was and was not classified.. You hit the nail on the head..

    If Hillary was running against a Republican candidate who did not daily exhibit his own very special brand of poor and ill-informed judgement and serious questions about his knowledge base and other qualifications, then this presidential election might have a whole other set of dynamics.

    If this were a normal election, I would agree....

    But this is not a normal election.... At it's foundation, this is a ESTABLISHMENT VS ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election..

    And Hillary's actions EPITOMIZE the incompetence and the self-centered'ness of the ESTABLISHMENT...

    In that, Trump is the PERFECT candidate to defeat Hillary...

    I would submit that the Republican candidate is the least qualified candidate for POTUS and leader of the free world.

    I could see how you would think that..

    But, consider the TOP 3 things on the minds of Americans in this election..

    Terrorism
    Economy
    Immigration

    And, in EACH AND EVERY ONE of those things, TRUMP is infinitely better suited to be POTUS than Hillary...

    Trump is infinitely more qualified than Barack Obama was in 2008....

    Excellent comment, Liz...

    Enough common ground to make me warm and fuzzy and enough disagreement to make for a fascinating discussion.. :D

    Michale

  328. [328] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once I quoted EXACTLY what Director had stated and PROVED Balthasar wrong, did he admit his mistake??

    Of course not...

    That's very annoying to me...

    Which is probably why ya'all do it.. :D heh

    Michale

  329. [329] 
    Michale wrote:

    The email mess that came to the public’s attention a year ago had been a weight around Hillary Clinton that she couldn’t shake, not with attempts at humor or lengthy explanations. Now it’s left to voters to settle whether the finding by FBI Director James Comey that no criminal charges are merited will put an end to the controversy.

    In focus groups in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida throughout this year, McClatchy found that the emails kept coming up among undecided voters. While most people were not familiar with the emails’ contents, they thought this much: They were stark evidence that Clinton was arrogant and untrustworthy.

    The question now: Does Comey’s exoneration counter that view, even though the FBI found that Clinton and her aides “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”?
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article87827607.html#storylink=cpy

    Director Comey's non-indictment indictment of Hillary Clinton will push those on the fence towards Trump...

    Michale

  330. [330] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/CIUNfbl_lHY

    What IS it about Hussein Odumbo that he can't talk any more??

    Michale

  331. [331] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/

    Just as I predicted..

    Trump is DEVASTATING Clinton with the Director Comey's verbal indictment of Clinton..

    Ya'all think that the email issue was annoying before?? Now that we have a man of Director Comey's integrity and professionalism verbally indicting Clinton and giving Trump all sorts of awesome sound bites, we're going to be seeing a LOT more of Hillary's email issue...

    A LOT MORE...

    Michale

  332. [332] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama DOJ Prosecuted More Gov. Officials For Leaking Classified Info Than Past Admins Combined

    Barack Obama’s Justice Department has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks of information under the World War I era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined — yet Hillary Clinton managed to avoid becoming part of that statistic Tuesday morning.

    FBI Director James Comey decided the bureau would urge that charges not be brought against former Secretary of State Clinton for her mishandling of classified information on her private email servers.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/obama-doj-prosecuted-more-gov-officials-for-leaking-classified-info-than-past-admins-combined/#ixzz4DcUnDk4y

    I guess a Democrat Candidate for POTUS is too big to jail...

    Michale

  333. [333] 
    Michale wrote:

    50 bucks says that, when Trump wins the election, Obama pardons Hillary...

    I just wonder if that would be binding on President Trump....

    I could just see President Trump saying, "Frak that!! Indict the bitch!!!"

    Michale

  334. [334] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, we're getting reports that the House GOP is requesting that FBI Director Comey turn over all investigation files on Hillary to them...

    Director Comey has no cause to refuse...

    It's beginning to look like it would have been BETTER for Hillary if she were formally and legally indicted... :D

    Michale

  335. [335] 
    Michale wrote:

    And on something completely unrelated...

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/05/george-will-may-be-leaving-the-gop-but-im-rejoining-it/

    I only mention it because it's got a buttload of DIE HARD references, including "WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!"

    heh

    Michale

  336. [336] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Clinton had no criminal intent or negative intentions of any kind.

    INTENT is not relevant to the statute, despite what Director Comey said..

    Further, Director Comey explicitly STATED that crimes were committed... They just didn't rise to the prosecutorial level..

    I accept and respect Director Comey's position.

    I simply disagree with it..

    But, make no mistake. Comey's own words PROVE that Hillary Clinton DID commit crimes..

    Michale

  337. [337] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Does a handful of possibly mis-classified emails out of 60,000 constitute an inference of intentional misconduct? In Comey's opinion, no.

    Is INTENT a consideration in the statute that Clinton was investigated under??

    No...

    Defense attorney have a neat little trick they try and pull to get their guilty clients off... I have seen it time and time again when I had to make court appearances..

    They create a completely different crime that is similar to the crime their client is on trial for.. They go on and on, offering mounds and mounds of facts that PROVE their client didn't commit the new crime... Their goal is to get the jury to conflate the imaginary accusation with the real accusation..

    In Weigantia, we have a name for that. A Strawman Argument..

    You are creating a strawman argument..

    You are arguing that Hillary never had any INTENT as if that is relevant...

    INTENT is not relevant, Director Comey's statements notwithstanding..

    Michale

  338. [338] 
    Michale wrote:

    INTENT is not relevant, Director Comey's statements notwithstanding..

    With deference to Joshua's comments re: intent...

    Yes, if you tap-dance and squint sideways during the full moon, but only on Tuesdays, you may be able to come up with an INFERENCE of intent*.. If you are a lawyer or adhere to Party loyalty...

    But a plain, agnostic, common sense reading of the Title 18, Section 793(F) clearly indicates that INTENT is not a requirement to be prosecuted under the statute...

    Michale

    {*} That was more tongue in cheek than anything else, Joshua... I honestly and sincerely understand what you are trying to say.. Your Doctor/Appendix/Leg analogy explained it perfectly and I do get it..

    But I still believe that such a reading defies the purpose of the statute. If INTENT was supposed to be necessary in the prosecution, then INTENT would have been stated without having to "divine" or infer it...

    The purpose of the statute is to punish those who have an I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY attitude.. In that, it was tailor-written for Hillary Clinton....

  339. [339] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    But let me ask....

    Does Director Comey's presser add to your knowledge of the email issue???

    Were you surprised that Hillary did this, or did that??

    Does it change your mind or cause you to re-think whether or not Hillary is qualified to be POTUS?? Not compared to Trump, but on her own merits??

    Michale

  340. [340] 
    TheStig wrote:

    One day later, I still can’t find a transcript of the Comey Press Conference, but I have watched the videos several times and have taken notes.

    Here is how I see the take – home:

    Comey is a lawyer, and he addressed Clinton’s case from a purely legal standpoint. The bottom line was “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.” There was no evidence of intentional misconduct. Comey ought to know, he’s well within his depth, he is familiar with case law.

    Comey said Clinton was extremely careless, and should have known better, although on the latter point, Comey did not really address why she should have known better. Politicians are not typically IT savvy. They depend upon staff to guide them through the hedge maze. Was she given a briefing? A manual? Was the manual in plain, readable English? Was it up to date and pertinent concerning best practices? Did she read the manual? Did she have a working knowledge of best practices? Based on my own experience working with classified material I am going to guess Yes, Yes, No, Not really, Skimmed It, Sort Of. Comey used a couple of very telling words:

    “State Department Culture Lacking.”

    Bingo Mr. Comey. You nailed it. Comey is talking about a System Failure. Clinton was head of the system, but she did not invent the culture. She coped with it. Her Presidential bid may die from it, although I kind of doubt it.

    Comey’s IT staff seems to have performed what is known in certain circles as a “hazard assessment.” A hazard assessment identifies failure points in a system, and what nasty things happen when a chain of failures occur. Comey’s remarks seem to indicate his staff could not perform a risk assessment, that is, they couldn’t really tell if certain event chains actually occurred (historical probability), or how likely chains of failure are likely to occur in future (likelihood). Risk assessment is powerful. Juno made it to Jupiter largely because NASA is very good at risk assessment. Our commercial aviation system is very safe largely because the aviation industry is very good at risk assessment.

    Politics is not good at risk assessment. Politics is good at finger pointing. At counting coup, settling scores etc. We are going to see some Swift Boating, we have been watching Swift Boating for months, Benghazi Style. How this plays out is anybody’s guess, and everybody does guess.

    There are two fine American traditions at play:

    One is: Bold Leadership. We admire bold leadership, because we all know from personal experience that sometimes you have play pretty close to or beyond the regulatory limits to get the job done. Horatio Hornblower, James T. Kirk

    Another is We Are A Nation of Laws. We must hold our politicians accountable for violating the laws; if we don’t, then tyranny will prevail. Nixon.

    It’s a matter of taste, that’s why we hold elections. Hold your nose and vote. All candidates are flawed, some more than others, it’s up to you to you John-Jane Q. Public to suss the least lizard. If you are not cynical, you are not paying attention.

  341. [341] 
    Michale wrote:

    One day later, I still can’t find a transcript of the Comey Press Conference, but I have watched the videos several times and have taken notes.

    I know you wouldn't stoop to taking information from a "troll"..... :^/

    But....

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

    Comment #204 above...

    Michale

  342. [342] 
    Michale wrote:

    Comey is a lawyer, and he addressed Clinton’s case from a purely legal standpoint.

    Comey is a cop...

    There was no evidence of intentional misconduct. Comey ought to know, he’s well within his depth, he is familiar with case law.

    Apparently, not familiar enough.. INTENT is not relevant to the statute...

    Comey said Clinton was extremely careless, and should have known better, although on the latter point, Comey did not really address why she should have known better.

    Because she signed an agreement STATING she knew better..

    Duh......

    Basically, Director Comey adhered to a general DOJ guideline...

    If at all possible, ensure prosecutions do not affect national elections.

    Basically, Director Comey obeyed that, but put (and will put) ALL the information out into the public domain and let the voters decide...

    In that, Director Comey did the honorable thing...

    Michale

  343. [343] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    One day later, I still can’t find a transcript of the Comey Press Conference, but I have watched the videos several times and have taken notes.

    Well, it's a good thing you have video ... and can take notes. Heh.

  344. [344] 
    Michale wrote:

    But....

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

    Comment #204 above...

    Perhaps if you spent less time hurling childish personal attacks and more time actually READING, you wouldn't have this comprehension problem...

    Or maybe your IGNORE ANY OPINION OR FACT THAT IS CONTRARY TO MY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY filter is frak'ed...

    I'm just sayin.... :D

    Michale

  345. [345] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you are not cynical, you are not paying attention.

    Nothing wrong with being cynical.

    It's the cynicism that is taken to the extreme that has become commonplace and that is dangerous to the political process that I have a problem with.

  346. [346] 
    Michale wrote:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.

    The agency's yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.
    http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/588c1ba16f51484e8e0010b12b9e8b28/ap-fact-check-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-probe

    For those who think Clinton did not lie??

    The facts are clear....

    Michale

  347. [347] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Trump is ultimately victorious then qualifications, or lack thereof, won't have had anything to do with it.

    We live in an era of global chaos where conventional wisdom and common sense have little resonance and very little is predictable. Establishment elites - financially and politically, especially - have brought us to this disruptive and destructive point through ill-conceived thinking and policymaking.

    I agree with you that this election is largely about anti-establishment with a certain degree of anti-Enlightenment thrown in for bad measure. Candidate Trump is taking full advantage of all of this, whether or not he initially wanted or still wants the big prize.

    Trumpism can be overcome. But, it will require an extraordinary effort, as yet unseen, by Hillary and her team and all Americans who support her.

  348. [348] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz -345

    "It's the cynicism that is taken to the extreme that has become commonplace and that is dangerous to the political process that I have a problem with."

    I couldn't agree more. I always vote. Even when it doesn't matter, in my gerrymandered, utterly noncompetitive district. Haven't been able to throw a bum out in years. Doesn't mean I don't try. :)

  349. [349] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I feel I would be wasting more than just bandwidth if I engage in further discussion of Hillary's emails, at least in the detail that we see in this thread.

    So, I'm officially moving on, fully accepting without exception the FBI director's recommendation to prosecutors. While I do believe that this entire episode will continue to directly impact on Hillary's credibility and trustworthiness, there are so many other equally important factors, issues and policies to discuss and assess the candidates based on their prescriptions for meeting the critical challenges of our time.

  350. [350] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump is ultimately victorious then qualifications, or lack thereof, won't have had anything to do with it.

    In 2008 qualifications (or lack thereof) didn't have anything to do with Obama's election..

    Why is that a problem with a Trump election??

    Especially when on considers that on the issues Americans ARE concerned about, Trump is imminently qualified...

    We live in an era of global chaos where conventional wisdom and common sense have little resonance and very little is predictable. Establishment elites - financially and politically, especially - have brought us to this disruptive and destructive point through ill-conceived thinking and policymaking.

    EXACTLY.. yer on a roll!!! :D

    So, why should we give those moronic and incompetent Establishment Elites MORE power to scroo us over again???

    I agree with you that this election is largely about anti-establishment with a certain degree of anti-Enlightenment thrown in for bad measure. Candidate Trump is taking full advantage of all of this, whether or not he initially wanted or still wants the big prize.

    So??? You can bet that if Hillary thought she could pull it off, SHE would be playing the POPULIST card left and right...

    But everyone would just laugh at her if she tried...

    Trumpism can be overcome.

    The "problem" is that upwards of 70%+ Americans don't WANT to overcome it...

    Those Americans want to EMBRACE it...

    And that is why Trump will win...

    Because Hillary is simply not the right person to play the Anti-Establishment Anti-Status Quo candidate...

    And THAT is the *ONLY* candidate that can win...

    Michale

  351. [351] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, I'm officially moving on, fully accepting without exception the FBI director's recommendation to prosecutors. While I do believe that this entire episode will continue to directly impact on Hillary's credibility and trustworthiness,

    You and I are in COMPLETE 1000% agreement on this, so I would agree..

    Further discussion between you and I on this issue is pointless, as we are in complete and perfect agreement...

    Why try to improve on perfection?? :D

    Michale

  352. [352] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @balthasar,

    thank you for the detailed clarification. if i understand correctly, you disagree with director comey not just about the expectation that the secstate should have known not to email the classified content, but whether or not the content should have been classified at all. essentially, you're calling this case a tempest in a teapot, or perhaps blaming the head of one agency for a problem that rests mainly with other agencies.

    i think that part of heading a government agency is figuring out how to play nice with the other agencies. if state is acting in a way that the fbi thinks dangerous enough to national security to even CONSIDER indicting its secretary, i can't see how one could deny there's a serious problem. hillary clinton didn't create the problem, but i believe she took some very bad advice. i agree with liz's comment about the state department's defense of its behavior being very problematic.

    @ts,

    great analysis, thank you for giving me additional context for comey's statement. also, i share your view on continuing to vote and be active no matter how pointless it can sometimes seem.

    @michale,

    yes, comey's statement contains information that nobody outside the investigation knew. there's nothing fundamental to change my opinion of hillary clinton's competence, but it confirms my opinion on some of her flaws - one of which is she tends to value her personal privacy far too much for such a public figure. another, which she shares with the president, is that she doesn't distinguish between adversaries - some are just about political attacks, but others have valid and genuinely held opinions on issues.

    So, basically, what Director Comey is doing is citing PRECEDENT, not the rule of law...

    this statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of what law IS. precedent (aka case law, aka common law) is equal and often even greater than statute in determining what the law is in any given situation.

    JL

  353. [353] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I couldn't agree more. I always vote. Even when it doesn't matter, in my gerrymandered, utterly noncompetitive district. Haven't been able to throw a bum out in years. Doesn't mean I don't try. :)

    Heh.

    Seriously, though ... how do we combat the kind of extreme cynicism that leads to the election of those bums in the first place!? That proposition becomes more complicated with each passing day, it seems ...

  354. [354] 
    Michale wrote:

    one of which is she tends to value her personal privacy far too much for such a public figure. another, which she shares with the president, is that she doesn't distinguish between adversaries - some are just about political attacks, but others have valid and genuinely held opinions on issues.

    Agreed...

    this statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of what law IS.

    Or valid and genuinely held different opinion.. :D

    precedent (aka case law, aka common law) is equal and often even greater than statute in determining what the law is in any given situation.

    Often.. But not always... It's dealer's choice...

    Michale

  355. [355] 
    Michale wrote:
  356. [356] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Often.. But not always... It's dealer's choice...

    in the case of the united states, common law has always come before statute. the dealer is thomas jefferson:

    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    the constitution is founded on the principles enumerated in the declaration of independence, not the other way 'round. even clarence thomas would tell you that much.

    JL

  357. [357] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    but... but... we're so close to 400!

    ;)
    JL

  358. [358] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Josh, what do you say we aim for 420 ... you know, to make Chris's day?

  359. [359] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey, Josh, what do you say we aim for 420 ... you know, to make Chris's day?

    hehehehehehe Now THAT was funny... :D

    I'll do my part...

    Michale

  360. [360] 
    Michale wrote:

    the constitution is founded on the principles enumerated in the declaration of independence, not the other way 'round. even clarence thomas would tell you that much.

    Given the experiences of the last 7+ years, the Constitution is COMPLETELY relevant/irrelevant.....

    It just depends on the '-D' or '-R' and their respective agendas...

    Michale

  361. [361] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now THAT ^^^ is cynicism.. :D

    Michale

  362. [362] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    I don't think there's a large percentage of people who are stupid enough to vote for Trump but not willing to admit it

    while i consider supporting trump for president to be a foolish action, there are many reasons one might arrive at that conclusion; calling all such people stupid or an idiot is not an accurate or useful description.

    FYI - i have supported hillary for president since she declared, and i voted for her in the primary, because she's the most able and qualified person who ran, from either party. however, i think it behooves us as supporters to call her out on those areas where she has made poor decisions, and demand better ones in the future. i think keeping government secrets on a series of non-secure private servers certainly qualifies as a poor decision, and per your advice she needs to let us know she's taking steps to avoid anything remotely similar in the future.

    JL

  363. [363] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hey, Josh, what do you say we aim for 420 ... you know, to make Chris's day?

    that would be funny. only family gets to call me josh though.

    JL

  364. [364] 
    Michale wrote:

    while i consider supporting trump for president to be a foolish action, there are many reasons one might arrive at that conclusion; calling all such people stupid or an idiot is not an accurate or useful description.

    Ding, Ding, Ding!!!! We have a winner!!! Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!!! :D

    As I said to Liz above, there are 3 major things on Americans' minds this election...

    Terrorism
    Economy
    Illegal Immigration

    And, in those 3 areas, Trump beats Hillary six ways from Sunday...

    On #1 & #3, Hillary wants to bring MORE criminals and MORE terrorists into this country..

    ON #2, Hillary has never produced a thing in her life, nor has she ever been a job-provider...

    Which is why the majority of Americans trust Trump over Hillary in those 3 things...

    however, i think it behooves us as supporters to call her out on those areas where she has made poor decisions, and demand better ones in the future. i think keeping government secrets on a series of non-secure private servers certainly qualifies as a poor decision, and per your advice she needs to let us know she's taking steps to avoid anything remotely similar in the future.

    If she were to do THAT, I'll wear ANOTHER T-Shirt of Paula's choice... :D

    Michale

  365. [365] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/dnc-rnc-plan-645391

    Well, ONE thing is perfectly clear...

    The Democrat Party is definitely NOT the adults in the room.... :^/

    Michale

  366. [366] 
    Michale wrote:

    LAWS ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nancy-pelosi-driver-cuts-across-traffic/

    I guess it's a Democrat thing....

    Michale

  367. [367] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI director to testify to Congress on Clinton emails

    FBI Director James Comey will testify to Congress Thursday on his findings about Hillary Clinton's secret email account, the House Oversight Committee announced.

    And NOW the real fun begins!!! :D

    Director Comey, being the cop's cop that he is will tell the facts, ALL the facts and NOTHING but the facts....

    Hillary is gonna wish she had been indicted.. :D

    Michale

  368. [368] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hillary is gonna wish she had been indicted.. :D

    nah, i think that's just you ;)

    JL

  369. [369] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    only family gets to call me josh though.

    Call me distraught.

    Just don't call me late for dinner!

  370. [370] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    i wouldn't even call you liz except that you referred to yourself that way

    JL

  371. [371] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Wow, just got back to find everyone still at it; looks like Michale got up early, by my clock. I can easily see this thread making it to 420.

    Kudos to theStig for a well written analysis [340].

    @nypoet22 [352]: Yes, it's a tempest in a teapot, as I view it, although the GOP appears determined to keep stirring the pot in the hope of heating it up again. I'm not sure that beating up a guy who used to be one of them on national television will do them much good, but maybe it will make them feel better - like punching a pillow when you're pissed. They'll probably try also to get the AG to go back on her promise to abide by the recommendations of the FBI - a promise she made after they demanded that she somehow recuse herself after the tarmac meeting. So it appears that we have more to go with this before it fades finally into the din of history.

  372. [372] 
    Michale wrote:

    nah, i think that's just you ;)

    Touche' :D

    I am picturing Master Gibbs... He just yelled at Will Turner about another dousing of a bucket of water..

    "I'm awake, damn you!!!"
    "That was for the smell.."

    -PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

    He starts to object and then shrugs his shoulders as if to say, "eh, yea, OK..." :D

    Michale

  373. [373] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Also: notice how fast these two committee hearings with Lynch and Comey were arranged? Apparently, the argument that 'process takes time' only applies when it's something that the American people need desperately.

  374. [374] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow, just got back to find everyone still at it; looks like Michale got up early, by my clock.

    My weekdaya usually starts at around 0430-0500, even on my one day off.. Sat & Sun, I am up and about at 0200...

    I can easily see this thread making it to 420.

    Be nice if we could see some statistics on the numbers... :D

    CW??? Any way to do that???

    @nypoet22 [352]: Yes, it's a tempest in a teapot, as I view it,

    Yea... So was Abu Ghraib and all of that stuff... That didn't stop the Democrats from going ape shit hysterical.. :D

    Michale

  375. [375] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yea... So was Abu Ghraib benghazi

    there, fixed that for ya

  376. [376] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what's with the strike tag?

  377. [377] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    dang.

  378. [378] 
    Michale wrote:

    hehehe

    Sorry, ya missed yer cue... :D heh

    But if you want to claim that Benghazi is the GOP's Abu Ghraib, I can somewhat see that..

    But no American Ambassador was brutally murdered in Abu Ghraib due to the complete and utter incompetence of the US SecState..

    But, other than that, yer right. It's dead on...

    Michale

  379. [379] 
    Michale wrote:
  380. [380] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But if you want to claim that Benghazi is the GOP's Abu Ghraib..

    I wouldn't. Benghazi is more like the GOP's unicorn, and E-gate is the GOP's white whale (although Pennsylvania is a close competitor for that spot).

    Abu Ghraib was completely FUBAR due to shoddy oversight. If you want to blame Benghazi on shoddy oversight, I'd remind you that Abu Ghraib probably had a far bigger budget, thanks to the GOP.

  381. [381] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wouldn't. Benghazi is more like the GOP's unicorn, and E-gate is the GOP's white whale (although Pennsylvania is a close competitor for that spot).

    Abu Ghraib was completely FUBAR due to shoddy oversight. If you want to blame Benghazi on shoddy oversight, I'd remind you that Abu Ghraib probably had a far bigger budget, thanks to the GOP.

    Of course you would say that..

    But Abu Ghraib was nothing worse than college hazing in a prison full of rapists, murderers and terrorists..

    Yunno... The Democrat Party's favorite groups.. :^/

    Michale

  382. [382] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wouldn't. Benghazi is more like the GOP's unicorn

    You mean, when our US Ambassador was killed and 3 good Americans lost their lives because our SecState was too busy to answer the goddamn six hundred 0300 phone calls???

    , and E-gate is the GOP's white whale

    You mean where our SecState opened up the entirety of the US State Dept to our enemies because she was too lazy and too paranoid??

    You have a funny priority system.. :^/

    Michale

  383. [383] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You mean, when our US Ambassador was killed and 3 good Americans lost their lives because our SecState was too busy to answer the goddamn six hundred 0300 phone calls???

    whoever told you that can't read or tell time. it wasn't three in the morning, it was three in the afternoon, and not a single piece of evidence from the many, many benghazi hearings suggested that secretary clinton wasn't doing her job when the attack happened.

    JL

  384. [384] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You mean, when our US Ambassador was killed and 3 good Americans lost their lives because our SecState was too busy to answer the goddamn six hundred 0300 phone calls??

    False. 7 investigations, including the longest investigation in the history of Congress couldn't find an iota of truth in that.

    You mean where our SecState opened up the entirety of the US State Dept to our enemies because she was too lazy and too paranoid??

    Unsubstantiated by the facts. The FBI could find no evidence that the Clinton server had, in fact, been hacked. There was plenty of evidence that the State Dept. server was hacked during that same time, but that didn't move the GOP Congress to increase State Dept. funding one penny. It's only acceptable to these guys to spend public money when attacking political opponents, apparently.

  385. [385] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's only acceptable to [congressional Republicans] to spend public money when attacking political opponents, apparently.

    That certainly seems to be the case and is one of the more important points in all of this email business. And yet, I hear nothing about this from Hillary Clinton, the former SoS, no less. Why is that?

  386. [386] 
    Michale wrote:

    whoever told you that can't read or tell time. it wasn't three in the morning, it was three in the afternoon, and not a single piece of evidence from the many, many benghazi hearings suggested that secretary clinton wasn't doing her job when the attack happened.

    Uhh...I was referring to the 600 EMAILS that Ambassador Stevens sent requesting security upgrades and enhancements..

    Requests that Hillary denied over and over again..

    The 0300 reference was from Clinton's 2008 ad that she was ready to take that 0300 phone call..

    Apparently, that was ANOTHER lie...

    Michale

  387. [387] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unsubstantiated by the facts. The FBI could find no evidence that the Clinton server had, in fact, been hacked.

    Director Comey stated that it was possible it was hacked.

    Our own NYPoet stated it was likely that it WAS hacked..

    There is ample intelligence that supports the idea that Putin was reading the US State Dept's emails..

    How else do you explain how Putin so decidedly DECIMATED the Obama Administration in The Crimea and in Syria???

    Michale

  388. [388] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on people!!! I can't get to 420 by myself!!

    I took a break to watch BATMAN VS SUPERMAN and I come back to find ya'all slackin'!!

    SLACKERS!! :D

    Quick question.. Who was the 4th superhero in Lex Luthor's files??

    Aquaman, Wonder Woman, The Flash... ????

    Michale

  389. [389] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The FBI could find no evidence that the Clinton server had, in fact, been hacked.

    but they did find that it was needlessly vulnerable. maybe it was hacked, maybe it wasn't. maybe top secret info was stolen by adversaries, maybe it wasn't. even clinton herself acknowledged that setting up the server was a mistake, though i didn't realize how serious a mistake until hearing that eight chains containing top secret info were exposed, along with 36 chains of secret info. even if the tendency is to overclassify, i doubt those were ALL irrelevant to national security.

    if that information was not compromised then we dodged a bullet. if it was, we may never know what the consequences are.

    JL

  390. [390] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I took a break to watch BATMAN VS SUPERMAN and I come back to find ya'all slackin'!!

    was it as bad as they say it was?

  391. [391] 
    Michale wrote:

    That certainly seems to be the case and is one of the more important points in all of this email business. And yet, I hear nothing about this from Hillary Clinton, the former SoS, no less. Why is that?

    Good question...

    1000 quatloos says you get no good answer...

    Michale

  392. [392] 
    Michale wrote:

    That certainly seems to be the case and is one of the more important points in all of this email business. And yet, I hear nothing about this from Hillary Clinton, the former SoS, no less. Why is that?

    Good question...

    1000 quatloos says you get no good answer...

    Michale

  393. [393] 
    Paula wrote:
  394. [394] 
    Paula wrote:
  395. [395] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    double posts don't count ;p

    and prepare to lose your quatloos.

  396. [396] 
    Paula wrote:

    Finally, nypoet: there may be excuses people who would vote for Trump would offer, but there is no defense. Anyone who would vote for Donald Trump for President is an idiot. Maybe a nice person in a general way but still an idiot. Trump is beyond the pale, period.

  397. [397] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula [393],

    from the articke:

    it sounds like the record retention practices in the State Department were a mess. There is no excuse whatsoever to allow ANYONE to use personal emails on a routine basis to conduct government business. It is the job of those records officers to tell the political appointees what they can and cannot do with their records.

    that makes a lot of sense to me. it sounds like the folks at state did the opposite of that.

  398. [398] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    and prepare to lose your quatloos.

    How so?

    I don't think I've ever heard Hillary, in the wake of this email situation, say anything about the huge disparity in resources allocated to the defense and state departments. This is a very critical issue that I wish she would talk more about, despite Clinton demonstrating a certain hawkishness.

  399. [399] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the rest of that first article kind-of ignores the top secret part of what was kept on a private server with no security protocols. reading the second now.

  400. [400] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    hillary would never mention it because it would seem like whining and it would tilt entire agencies against her - agencies she will have to work with if she becomes president. she knows it's a full-contact game and she plays it with the big boys and girls. that includes keeping quiet about the elephant in the room if discussing it would make someone look from bad whom you need something.

    JL

  401. [401] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's just precious Joshua.

    Please explain to me, like I'm a six year old, how advocating for more resources for the State Department would seem like whining and would tilt entire agencies against her.

    This should be good.

  402. [402] 
    Paula wrote:

    I might add, btw, a big fat thanks to republicans for making sure the entire world knows how poor our federal IT systems are. They care so much about our country's safety they refuse to fund the government adequately while trumpeting to the world the weaknesses that result, all in the name of a partisan witch-hunt. And while their breathless investigations go on, do you see a single one attempting in any way to do anything meaningful about anything? Utterly contemptible.

  403. [403] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, you see, Paula, this is what Hillary should be saying!

    She's wasting time talking about Trump's business practices. She needs to concentrate more on what the Republicans are all about.

  404. [404] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    hillary would never mention it because it would seem like whining and it would tilt entire agencies against her - agencies she will have to work with if she becomes president. she knows it's a full-contact game and she plays it with the big boys and girls. that includes keeping quiet about the elephant in the room if discussing it would make someone look from bad whom you need something.

    Actually, that comment says quite a lot about why critical challenges facing America are so difficult to deal with. This is the kind of attitude that will elect Donald Trump, God forbid.

  405. [405] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    Please explain to me, like I'm a six year old, how advocating for more resources for the State Department would seem like whining and would tilt entire agencies against her.

    y'see lizzie, grown-ups sometimes get to spend other people's money as part of their job, and they get very angry if someone says they did a bad job spending the money. when they get angry, sometimes they go to their room and don't come out for a long time. that's why people who want them to do a better job never tell them they did a bad job. a smart grown-up will wait until she has the money - then it's a lot easier to convince those other people to do a better job of spending it

    ;-)

    JL

  406. [406] 
    Paula wrote:

    [403] Elizabeth: I don't think she's wasting time although I appreciate your point. I think everyone else is handling the "what the Republicans are about" -- the President, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, etc. -- leaving her to focus on contrasting herself with Trump.

    I'd like to see Senate/Congressional Dems do some major pushback to this potential new round of stupid investigations of the investigation too. We'll see.

  407. [407] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    No one gets to call me lizzie!!

    Though, I have been called worse ... as in Ms Miller or the infinitely dreaded ma'am.

  408. [408] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    That's all well and good but Hillary is the candidate, she is the one in the spotlight and this is her campaign.

    I think the tack she is on is the wrong one and will ensure that this election is too close for comfort.

    Besides, the best way to distinguish herself from Trump is to keep focused on the issues and what congressional Republicans are doing and how Republican ideology - economically, especially - has been proven time and again not to work.

    Indeed, by focusing on the issues - without getting too much into the weeds, mind you - she may force Trump to try the same and this is not his game.

    Don't tell me we're going to have to endure the "explainer-in-chief" because the less we see of Bill in all of this the better for Hillary and the Democratic cause. He's past his expiry date, long past!

  409. [409] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    the second article does clarify how many the "small number" of items marked classified were - two. otherwise, the author seems to be upset that comey presented the full findings of the investigation, which he admitted was unusual, and gave a valid reason for presenting. yes, a case can be made that clinton didn't lie - comey didn't say that she did, that's the righty media spin of his findings.

    in fact, comey seems to believe that when she said she hadn't sent classified information, she believed that to be so. i.e. not a lie, a mistake.

    JL

  410. [410] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No one gets to call me lizzie!!

    LoL!

    so.... yeah.

    also, i agree that attacking trump directly isn't the best course to stay on, but maybe she felt it was necessary to define him. let's see what comes next.

  411. [411] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay.

  412. [412] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    in fact, comey seems to believe that when she said she hadn't sent classified information, she believed that to be so. i.e. not a lie, a mistake.

    Of course, that's better known as extreme incompetence.

  413. [413] 
    Paula wrote:

    [409] nypoet: I agree with you re: rightwing spin but I still think Comey fed that, deliberately. By putting out there the "we have no evidence the server was hacked but…" he set it up for righties to continue to assert it was hacked, just not found to be hacked, etc. Similarly I don't think he acknowledged that the whole "who classifies stuff when" aspect of this, nor did he acknowledge that rules were made AFTER HRC wasn't SOS. Etc. What he did was put out the worst construction he could manage, given that he couldn't call what she did "criminal", without providing any exonerating info, which stinks. She wasn't there to defend herself.

  414. [414] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: I don't think we'll be relying on Bill -- she's got plenty of other surrogates.

  415. [415] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Similarly I don't think he acknowledged that the whole "who classifies stuff when" aspect of this, nor did he acknowledge that rules were made AFTER HRC wasn't SOS.

    Not relevant, Paula.

    It sounds like you would rather have had Comey come out and make a complete fool of himself. He was being completely transparent about the investigation and to do any less, in this unique situation, would have been a huge failure in judgement, not to mention direction of duty.

    By the way, guys like Director Comey - and Secretary Geithner, I hasten to add - are the public servants who give America a good name and should be praised for their efforts, not denigrated.

  416. [416] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dereliction of duty

  417. [417] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Elizabeth: I don't think we'll be relying on Bill -- she's got plenty of other surrogates.

    Thank God!

  418. [418] 
    Paula wrote:

    [415] Elizabeth: disagree -- is relevant because the nonsense on the right conflates things HRC did before and after rules were changed -- as Comey I'm sure was perfectly aware.

    I don't think he needed to make a fool of himself -- he just needed to present his findings without editorializing.

  419. [419] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Director Comey cannot do a lesser job just because the republicans go ape shit crazy. That's what they do!

  420. [420] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Could it be that Bill's public meeting with Lynch at the airport caused Hillary and the FBI to push up her interview and brought about a speedier closure to this entire e-mail circus? There are few people in this world that know how to play politics as well as Bill Clinton, IMHO.

  421. [421] 
    Paula wrote:

    [420] Listen: I don't think so. This interview was scheduled -- or at least, known about -- months ago. It was always going to be the last step and Comey said months ago he'd be wrapping it up in May, I think it was.

    [419} E: It's not a "lesser job" -- it's a non-partisan job. Yes, the righties go ape shit crazy so encouraging it is irresponsible.

  422. [422] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "How else do you explain how Putin so decidedly DECIMATED the Obama Administration in The Crimea and in Syria???"

    In the case of Crimea, one word: GEOGRAPHY. The results in Crimea were going to be the same NO MATTER who was President of the USA. Crimea, before it became part of Ukraine, was part of Russia for 200 years. The population of Crimea is 60 percent Russian. Crimea contains Russia's ONLY warm water port. Crimea is VITAL to Russia in a way that would make Russia go to war for it. Other Europeans, like Germany, simply have no reason to care about it to that great a degree in the same way. One the Russians put their Special Forces in Crimea, along with the military base they ALREADY had there, Crimea's fate was sealed from the very moment Ukraine started making noises about joining NATO and the EU.

    As for Syria, like many other states in the Middle East and Africa, such as Libya, Iraq, Congo, etc. it is an artificial construct drawn by European colonial powers without any regard to any realistic factors on the ground, like natural geographic boundaries or religious or ethnic communities. It is actually amazing that it managed to be a stable whole entity as long as it did.

    Syria also contains, the only OTHER warm water port, that is available to the Russian navy as a base, outside of Russia itself, i.e., the Crimea.

  423. [423] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    @Paula - thanks for the links at [393]-[394]. Very enlightening.

    @ListenWhenYouHear [420] - You want to hear a better one? My theory is that Bill Clinton, realizing that if Lynch decided in Hillary's favor, it would immediately be declared a political whitewash by the GOP. That would exonerate Hillary, but hang over the campaign like a drunk at a party. So he gave Lynch an excuse (or just forced her hand by boarding her plane) to take herself and all of the Justice Department lawyers (some of whom are holdovers from the Bush years) out of the decision whether to prosecute. That put the decision squarely on Comey, who is himself a Republican (appointed by Bush) of unassailable character. Why would Clinton want to do this? He presumably didn't know which way the FBI was going to come down on an indictment, but he did know that a negative recommendation by the FBI would have to be followed by Lynch anyway (otherwise the press and GOP would be screaming for blood), so taking Lynch out of the equation had no downside either way.

  424. [424] 
    Paula wrote:

    And now it's looking like NONE of the emails were classified at the time:
    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7/6/1545726/-Weak-Sauce-Classified-e-mails-were-call-sheets

  425. [425] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula [424],

    that's not what the article says. it refers only to the two e-mails that were "marked" classified (which the other article already established as bottom-level classification - confidential information like important people's phone numbers. it says nothing about the 111 other emails that were not marked classified but contained classified information.

    JL

  426. [426] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    @Paula [424]: that's something we should have known a long time ago. Reminds me that all this email stuff began as a spin-off of the ever-political Benghazi committee, whose propensity for selective leaking has fueled both of these overblown investigations.

    The trouble with building cases based on selectively leaked half truths is that when the whole truth emerges, the case tends to fall apart.

    Literally, a house of cards.

  427. [427] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    it says nothing about the 111 other emails that were not marked classified but contained classified information.

    Allegedly. Apparently too allegedly to justify bringing charges.

    Even so, as Comey said, a handful of questionable examples out of tens of thousands of emails does not make her Ed Snowden. Apparently, Hillary used the 'proper' servers for classified communications over 99% of the time. Some criminal.

  428. [428] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    took a break to watch BATMAN VS SUPERMAN and I come back to find ya'all slackin'!!

    was it as bad as they say it was?

    It was tedious at times.. Over-characterization rather than jam-packed with action..

    "I do like jam."
    -Vala Maldaran, STARGATE SG-1

    :D

    It definitely wasn't an Avengers movie, but it was OK.. Give it a 6...

    I was disappointed that Jason Mamoa (Aquaman) didn't have a bigger role..

    Michale

  429. [429] 
    Michale wrote:

    double posts don't count ;p

    I hate that when that happens.. My trackball button is wanky... :^(

    and prepare to lose your quatloos.

    Well, if anyone can do it, you can. :D

    Michale

  430. [430] 
    Michale wrote:

    I might add, btw, a big fat thanks to republicans for making sure the entire world knows how poor our federal IT systems are. They care so much about our country's safety they refuse to fund the government adequately while trumpeting to the world the weaknesses that result, all in the name of a partisan witch-hunt. And while their breathless investigations go on, do you see a single one attempting in any way to do anything meaningful about anything? Utterly contemptible.

    Seriously, Paula...

    Could you be ANY more partisan??

    The GOP is "utterly contemptible" for letting the world know how bad our IT security is??

    But HILLARY is as pure as the driven snow despite the FACT that she ran a dedicated SecState private email server that makes the State Dept IT look like Fort Knox...

    Seriously!???

    Michale

  431. [431] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    in fact, comey seems to believe that when she said she hadn't sent classified information, she believed that to be so. i.e. not a lie, a mistake.

    So, then when Bush said that Iraq had nukes, he believed it and, therefore Bush didn't lie..

    Would that be an accurate assessment??

    Michale

  432. [432] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even so, as Comey said, a handful of questionable examples out of tens of thousands of emails does not make her Ed Snowden.

    Even if that were accurate and that was what Comey said (you don't have a quote, do you?? No, you don't..) it DOES make her unqualified for POTUS...

    Michale

  433. [433] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    Re:422

    Whatever helps you sleep at night.. :D

    The Obama Administration got totally decimated by Putin in Syria and in The Crimea... Much more so than conventional means and "luck" would allow...

    Putin had inside knowledge as to exactly what was going on in the inner workings of the administration..

    Only one thing fits all the facts...

    Putin was reading the State Department's emails...

    Michale

  434. [434] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Balthasar,

    Wasn't it you who was slamming Trump for his alleged friendship with Epstein??

    Attorneys for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein touted his close friendship with Bill Clinton and even claimed the billionaire helped start Clinton's controversial family foundation in a 2007 letter aimed at boosting his image during plea negotiations, FoxNews.com has learned.
    The 23-page letter, written by high-powered lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt, was apparently part of an ultimately successful bid to negotiate a plea deal before Epstein could be tried for using underage girls in a sex ring based in Palm Beach, Fla., and his private island estate on the 72-acre Virgin Islands home dubbed “Orgy Island.” Epstein spent 13 months in prison and home detention after agreeing to a plea deal in which he admitted to soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html

    Like I said.. You are in a very fragile glass house with that accusation..

    You might want to NOT throw stones.. :D

    Because Clinton is mired with Epstein a LOT more than you could EVER hope Trump is...

    Michale

  435. [435] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looking for definitive evidence of “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information” is an almost impossible standard to meet. It's something that most Americans who are not deeply involved in the legal system wouldn’t realize is happening.

    It is also clearly not the law. People can read for themselves the criminal code (18 USC 793 Section f). “Gross negligence” of mishandling classified information is enough. In Comey’s own words, Hillary clearly met that standard. There is no requirement for intent or willfulness.
    -John Lott

    Two FACTS are abundantly clear and inarguable..

    1> INTENT is not required to charge someone under Title 18 USC, Section 793 (F)

    and

    B> Hillary Clinton and her staff met the "grossly negligent" standard of the statute she was being investigated under....

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.."
    -Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  436. [436] 
    Michale wrote:

    Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

    Glenn Greenwald
    July 5 2016, 3:58 p.m.

    Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner – at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said back in 2000, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-until-hillary-clinton/

    Leave it to Glenn Greenwald to stick the landing... :D

    Michale

  437. [437] 
    Michale wrote:

    To be sure, the Democrat Party has a LOT more problems than Hillary Clinton...

    The Democrats’ Black Lives Matter Problem

    False racial narratives have created very real racial issues
    by Edmund Kozak

    The Democratic Party’s opportunistic manipulation of identity politics for short-term political gain may in the long run be a catastrophic boomerang. Like Frankenstein’s monster, the Black Lives Matter movement threatens to devour its creator.

    “If the platform comes and it doesn’t include a $15 minimum wage or if it’s weak about criminal justice, or if it doesn’t include some real commitments about the police, I think then you will see protests around these issues and forcing the DNC [Democratic National Committee] to act differently,” said DeRay McKesson, a founding member of Black Lives Matter.
    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/democrats-black-lives-matter-problem/

    It will be interesting to see how the Weigantian Hillary Clinton Pep Squad will react when the (O)BLM racist hate group starts throwing their tantrums...

    Michale

  438. [438] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's shoot for 450!!! :D

    Michale

  439. [439] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone who would vote for Donald Trump for President is an idiot. Maybe a nice person in a general way but still an idiot. Trump is beyond the pale, period.

    In YOUR opinion...

    But it's an opinion based on NOTHING but political bigotry...

    And it's going to make accepting Hillary's loss to Trump all the more difficult to accept...

    Michale

  440. [440] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, Paula.. Bigotry, in and of itself, is not necessarily a BAD thing...

    Because of the traitorous actions of the Democrats in the aftermath of 9/11, I am very bigoted against Democrats...

    BUT....

    The difference between you and I is that I recognize my bigotry for what it is and, more important, I don't let it control me..

    As bigoted as I am against Democrats, I still voted for Barack Obama.. I still vote for Senator Nelson..

    And, if Donald Trump had a '-D' after his name, instead of a '-R', I would vote for Donald Trump....

    That's what's important..

    Not letting one's bigotry be in control...

    That's the difference between me and everyone else (N.E.N.) in Weigantia...

    Michale

  441. [441] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Re:422
    Whatever helps you sleep at night.. :D
    The Obama Administration got totally decimated by Putin in Syria and in The Crimea... Much more so than conventional means and "luck" would allow...
    Putin had inside knowledge as to exactly what was going on in the inner workings of the administration..
    Only one thing fits all the facts...
    Putin was reading the State Department's emails..."

    Michale, be REALISTIC. NO, it is NOT the ONLY thing that fits all the facts. I will concede that it MAY have made Putin a little more comfortable about what he was doing, but it would not have changed the how or why of what he was doing one bit.

    The USA, no matter what Administration was in power, was simply never going to go to war or get involved in a military confrontation with Russia, over anything that happened in either Crimea or Syria. Neither are vital to U.S. national security in a way that existentially threaten the existence of the USA. Which is totally the opposite situation that Crimea is for Russia. And only a direct confrontation of the Russian military by the U.S. military, would have changed anything. Those are the FACTS.

    Do you really, honestly think that the USA was going to put troops on the ground in Crimea to stop the Russians? Because that is the ONLY thing that would have. Or that the USA was going to put troops on the ground in Syria, after our experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan under both Bush and Obama? The American people would have had a fit!

  442. [442] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, be REALISTIC. NO, it is NOT the ONLY thing that fits all the facts. I will concede that it MAY have made Putin a little more comfortable about what he was doing, but it would not have changed the how or why of what he was doing one bit.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.. But, given my military background.. :D

    Do you really, honestly think that the USA was going to put troops on the ground in Crimea to stop the Russians? Because that is the ONLY thing that would have. Or that the USA was going to put troops on the ground in Syria, after our experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan under both Bush and Obama? The American people would have had a fit!

    There were MANY things that the US could do to up the ante in The Crimea and in Syria....

    But Obama didn't want to do anything and Putin knew that Obama didn't want to do anything...

    Regardless, here's the thing...

    If Hillary does win the election and then starts kow-towing to Putin, then we will know as an absolute certainty that Putin has Hillary's emails... :D

    Michale

  443. [443] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "It will be interesting to see how the Weigantian Hillary Clinton Pep Squad will react when the (O)BLM racist hate group starts throwing their tantrums..."

    Except that it won't.

    “If the platform comes and it doesn’t include a $15 minimum wage or if it’s weak about criminal justice, or if it doesn’t include some real commitments about the police..."

    Because it will include all those proposals. Most Democrats running for office have already come out in support of all of those things anyway. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats actually adopt the positions that their rank and file supporters want. If they didn't. then the Democratic establishment would have their own version of Trump to worry about, just like the Republican establishment.

    I know, you are going to mention Bernie Sanders. But the crucial difference is that the Democratic establishment is co-opting Bernie Sanders by adopting some of his positions. In the Republican party, it is the OTHER WAY AROUND. Trump is co-opting the Republican Establishment by making them IRRELEVANT. Trump now IS the Republican Party. The establishment didn't leave the party. The PARTY LEFT THEM.

  444. [444] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If Hillary does win the election and then starts kow-towing to Putin, then we will know as an absolute certainty that Putin has Hillary's emails... :D"

    Except that Trump is the one who seems to be the slavering fan of Putin. So much so that at times he seems to be Putin's lap dog.

  445. [445] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except that Trump is the one who seems to be the slavering fan of Putin. So much so that at times he seems to be Putin's lap dog.

    Simply not factually accurate...

    Trump respects Putin as a great leader..

    So do I...

    Putin is 20 THOUSAND times the leader that Hussein Odumbo is...

    But he is still the enemy...

    Michale

  446. [446] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M...

    And what "real commitments against the police" are Democrats willing to do??

    THAT's the dilemma that the Demcorats face..

    If these commitments are satisfactory for the (O)BLM racist hate group, they will DECIMATE the Demcorats standing with decent and honest Americans...

    If these commitments are acceptable to decent and honest Americans, the (O)BLM racist hate group will burn down Philadelphia...

    "Well, Womack.. Looks like your stuck between The Rock and a hard case.."
    -Sean Connery, THE ROCK

    :D

    Either way, Demcorats lose and lose BIG....

    Michale

  447. [447] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know, you are going to mention Bernie Sanders. But the crucial difference is that the Democratic establishment is co-opting Bernie Sanders by adopting some of his positions. In the Republican party, it is the OTHER WAY AROUND. Trump is co-opting the Republican Establishment by making them IRRELEVANT. Trump now IS the Republican Party. The establishment didn't leave the party. The PARTY LEFT THEM.

    Which is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular with Independents and NPAs...

    He's shown that the Republican Party is useless in actually getting things done for Americans... Trump has ALSO shown that Democrats are no different than Republicans..

    Out for their own greedy selves and their own self-serving agenda and to hell with the American people..

    THAT is why Trump is going to win.. Because his positions are the positions of a VAST MAJORITY of Americans, GOP, DEM and NPA...

    Michale

  448. [448] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unintended consequences....

    Say HELLO to The Hillary Defense...

    Lawyers who specialize in representing government and military officials who’ve had security clearances revoked said Comey’s recommendation offered them a new tactic in seeking to rehabilitate their clients, especially if Clinton is elected president in November.

    “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.”

    He added, “We’ve had people lose 20-year careers for doing less than what she did.”
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article88042162.html

    Michale..

  449. [449] 
    Michale wrote:

    Marco makes his mark: Leads Senate push to strip Hillary of security clearance
    GOP petitions State Dept. to cancel Clinton aides’ clearances as well

    A high-powered group of senators officially petitioned the State Department Thursday to suspend the security clearances of former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her top aides -- a move that could effectively kneecap her preparations for the White House.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/gop-petitions-state-dept-cancel-clinton-aides-secu/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRGa09ESXpNREl4TWpoayIsInQiOiIxdk55OFZkanp3bzJVYzV2elFzbGZJS2Y4OEFnemI3XC9ScnM3ZHpzVUVIQmVuXC9aN1pqZmtHbloyUkRHajB1U1ZmbG12QnBUSlh6VkVyM0crZmtpNFJtXC9naFo3RUd3TmhmZlpYQU1qVUs5RT0ifQ%3D%3D

    NICE!!!

    VERY nice!! :D

    Like I said.. Hillary is going to WISH she had been formally indicted...

    The Court Of Public Opinion is now is session and THEIR indictment will be heard... :D

    This is gonna be so frak'in awesome... :D

    Michale

  450. [450] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI Director James B. Comey, who this week said that while a criminal case isn’t warranted, the administration should consider stripping security access from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, based on their mishandling of classified information in connection with private email accounts they each used during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department.

    OUCH... That's gotta hurt... :D

    Michale

  451. [451] 
    Michale wrote:

    450.. Didn't even break a sweat.. :D

    Let's shoot for 500...

    JM, I would REALLY love to see your response to #446...

    Liz, Joshua I would LOVE ya'alls take on this newest development of stripping Clinton et al of their security clearances...

    I mean, yea... It could be spun as nothing but sour grapes.

    But considering the FACTS of Clinton's et al gross negligence vis a vis mis-handling classified information...... Stripping them of their clearances is fully and completely justified...

    Michale

  452. [452] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's shoot for 500...

    That would be completely missing the point.

    To get back on point, we'd have to aim for 1420 and, for me, that's a bridge too far ... :)

  453. [453] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    As soon as Clinton and Trump are officially nominated, then they both will and should receive those very important intelligence briefings.

  454. [454] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would be completely missing the point.

    Yea, I thought about that after I noticed we were up to 427 when I got up this morning...

    To get back on point, we'd have to aim for 1420 and, for me, that's a bridge too far ... :)

    Awwww, com'on!!! We can do it! hehehehe

    Michale

  455. [455] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You com'on!!!

  456. [456] 
    Michale wrote:

    As soon as Clinton and Trump are officially nominated, then they both will and should receive those very important intelligence briefings.

    Actually, they are getting them now...

    But that's not the point..

    With her gross negligence, Hillary has PROVEN she can't be trusted with classified briefings...

    Her clearances and the clearances MUST be revoked.. Just as they were for General Patraeus and any other high ranking official who was extremely careless in handling classified material...

    It's not politics... It's common sense..

    Michale

    Michale

  457. [457] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not politics... It's common sense..

    The decision to CONTINUE to allow Hillary access to classified intelligence..

    THAT is politics...

    Michale

  458. [458] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Sometimes, Michale, you just have to accept reality.

    The reality here is that Clinton will not be prosecuted and she is the Democratic nominee for president. Furthermore, she is likely to be the next president and to continue the line that she should have her security clearances revoked is a wholly non-serious argument.

    It would be better to lay out the case for why voters should or shouldn't vote for her.

  459. [459] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I mean, yea... It could be spun as nothing but sour grapes.

    D'Ya think? No partisan intent there..

    Spin it any way you want now: it's over. Moreover, the GOP fell for Bill Clinton's stunt at the airport and demanded that Lynch recuse herself, so now they only have one of their own - Comey - to rake over the coals about the outcome.

    You have to admit it, the Clintons played the GOP like a bass fiddle on that one.

    As far as security clearances go, I'll believe that the GOP is serious about that when they revoke the security clearances of Troy Gowdy and Jason Chavitz for deliberately revealing classified information during the course of the Benghazi investigation. Wasn't it Chavitz who shocked the Intelligence community by publicly outing the (previously classified) CIA station in Benghazi? Any concern about that from the GOP? nope.

    The FBI report was clear: Hillary's emails were 99-point-somthing percent clean, and the less than one percent that were left didn't constitute a violation of any law. You can't even convincingly claim negligence based on a less than 1% error rate.

    I'll bet that no one from the GOP brings up the chronic underfunding that the State Department suffers every year due to GOP disrespect.

  460. [460] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sometimes, Michale, you just have to accept reality.

    I do accept reality..

    But you also must accept that same reality..

    And THAT reality is, when the Director of the FBI says that several someones who were "extremely careless" in handling classified information, then those several someones SHOULD have their security clearances pulled..

    THIS is the reality that, apparently, you can't accept..

    . Furthermore, she is likely to be the next president

    I thought you wanted to talk about REALITY?? :D

    d to continue the line that she should have her security clearances revoked is a wholly non-serious argument..

    We'll see.. :D

    Michale

  461. [461] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    You ready to concede that Director Comey said this:

    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.

    Until you admit you were wrong, we have nothing to discuss...

    Michale

  462. [462] 
    Michale wrote:

    And THAT reality is, when the Director of the FBI says that several someones who were "extremely careless" in handling classified information, then those several someones SHOULD have their security clearances pulled..

    Who hear want's to accept THAT reality???

    {{{chiirrrrrpppppp}}} {{chirrrrrppppp}}

    :D

    Michale

  463. [463] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, Comey said that. Let's break that down (again): In this case the 'owning agency' that Comey refers to is likely an agency other than the State Department, so their decision as to whether any particular email should have been marked classified at the time is moot, other than to start an argument about whether the dress is blue or white - depending on who's looking at it.

    And the reason that Comey keeps referring to email 'chains' is that, apparently some of the 'owning agencies' determined that in those cases, even though there were no emails marked classified, the Subject Matter the chain was about should have been classified. More bureaucratic infighting, in other words.

    Again, 110 out of 30,000 (there were 60,000 total) is less than 1%. *Yawn*

  464. [464] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, Comey said that.

    OK, you admit you were wrong.. Thank you..

    Again, 110 out of 30,000 (there were 60,000 total) is less than 1%. *Yawn*

    I am assuming you have never served in the military or held a security clearance...

    Those classified stamps are there FOR A REASON..

    The SecState doesn't get to pick and choose which ones are REALLY classified and which ones are not..

    Especially when those designations came agencies outside of the State Dept...

    *ESPECIALLY* when those outside agencies are INTELLIGENCE agencies..

    Clinton was "EXTREMELY CARELESS" in handling classified intelligence...

    That disqualifies her from being POTUS and explains EXACTLY why her and her staff's security clearances will be revoked..

    D'Ya think? No partisan intent there..

    Are you saying that because there is partisan intent, then it's a non-issue??

    If that is your position, then you must agree that EVERY Bush investigation mounted by the Demcorats... EVERY ONE was a "non issue"...

    You can't have it both ways.... It's not allowed.. :D

    Michale

  465. [465] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's been proven beyond ANY doubt whatsoever, that Clinton was grossly negligent in handling classified information.. Her and her staff CANNOT be trusted with classified intelligence...

    THIS IS FACT....

    The decision to revoke her and her staff's security clearances is a logical, rational and common sense decision....

    The decision NOT to revoke her and her staff's security clearances is solely, utterly, unequivocally and completely a POLITICAL decision...

    Michale

  466. [466] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar

    Also: notice how fast these two committee hearings with Lynch and Comey were arranged? Apparently, the argument that 'process takes time' only applies when it's something that the American people need desperately.

    So, let me ask you..

    If the House was under Democrat control and Comey had recommended indictment of Hillary do you think:

    A> That Democrats wouldn't have hearings JUST AS FAST??

    and

    2> YOU would mock the Democrats??

    You see the point??

    Michale

  467. [467] 
    Michale wrote:

    Q: Director Comey. Would someone who was extremely careless in handling classified intelligence be terminated from Federal Employment?

    FBI Director Comey: Yes.

    Michale

  468. [468] 
    Michale wrote:
  469. [469] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gods, the moron from MA is a complete moron!!

    He tried to equate Colin Powell's use of AOL occasionally with Hillary setting up her own private server...

    What a moron....

    Michale

  470. [470] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Q: Director Comey. Would someone who was extremely careless in handling classified intelligence be terminated from Federal Employment?

    FBI Director Comey: Yes.

    Michale

    Michale,

    If we are going to use this thread to quote question and answer from the hearing now in session, then we should be accurate.

    What you wrote above, Michale, is not accurate, in any way, shape or form.

  471. [471] 
    Michale wrote:

    If we are going to use this thread to quote question and answer from the hearing now in session, then we should be accurate.

    What you wrote above, Michale, is not accurate, in any way, shape or form.

    It is accurate to the best of my ability....

    Once the transcripts are released, we can confirm...

    However, the gist of what I wrote is completely accurate...

    Michale

  472. [472] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    However, the gist of what I wrote is completely accurate...

    False.

  473. [473] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am assuming you have never served in the military or held a security clearance...

    I have, so you're not BS'ing me with that one.

    The SecState doesn't get to pick and choose which ones are REALLY classified and which ones are not..

    Really? Who does? A clerk at CIA? A captain at the Pentagon? Jason "oops I outed the CIA" Chavitz? Which official in the intelligence community outranks the Secretary of State?

    Clinton was "EXTREMELY CARELESS" in handling classified intelligence..

    As a matter of fact, Comey said that the entire State Department was, is, and has been always extremely careless in handling classified intelligence. More infighting. I would like to see how their record stacks up against the record of the GOP members and staff of the House Oversight Committee. It wouldn't be pretty.

    Are you saying that because there is partisan intent, then it's a non-issue??

    No, I'm saying that partisan intent must be taken into account, especially when the GOP House Majority Leader publicly admits that the Benghazi Committee (from which E-gate originates) was a vehicle for banging on Hillary, as Kevin McCarthy did last October. This was shortly seconded by other Republicans, such as Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY), who said, “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.” A former staffer for the committee claimed that he was fired for not wanting to focus on Clinton. And on, and on...

    If that is your position, then you must agree that EVERY Bush investigation mounted by the Demcorats... EVERY ONE was a "non issue"

    I do wish that EVERY ONE was a non-issue, but unfortunately, I think that there are actually many fundamental questions still left to be answered by the Bush Administration, many of which still wouldn't be comfortable for the GOP. For instance, about support for the morally abhorrent practice of torture, which is being touted as a feature, not a bug, of the Trump campaign.

  474. [474] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have, so you're not BS'ing me with that one.

    It doesn't show....

    As a matter of fact, Comey said that the entire State Department was, is, and has been always extremely careless in handling classified intelligence.

    If we were talking about the ENTIRE State Department, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..

    No, I'm saying that partisan intent must be taken into account,

    Except when it's Demcorat intent... :^/

    I do wish that EVERY ONE was a non-issue, but unfortunately, I think that there are actually many fundamental questions still left to be answered by the Bush Administration

    Of course you do... That's my point..

    Michale

  475. [475] 
    Michale wrote:

    However, the gist of what I wrote is completely accurate...

    False.

    Your evidence??

    Michale

  476. [476] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Read the transcript!

    Or, watch the hearing ...

  477. [477] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am watching the hearings as I type this....

    As far as I know, a transcript hasn't been released... If you have a link, by all means...

    Michale

  478. [478] 
    Michale wrote:

    FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216#ixzz4Djy3kSCz

    Michale

  479. [479] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hillary lied...

    That's it...

    Michale

  480. [480] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there is your crime of Perjury.....

    Rather ironic that Hillary is going to be charged with the same charge her husband was impeached over.. :D

    Michale

  481. [481] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would ANYONE like to field the issue in #446????

    No???

    What a pity....

    Michale

  482. [482] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I joined late, but I thought that Rep. Lieu was very good.

    All the Republicans can do, after spending 30 million dollars and coming up with bupkis, is to promise more prosecution.

  483. [483] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the Republicans can do, after spending 30 million dollars and coming up with bupkis, is to promise more prosecution.

    Funny how you don't attack Comey for spending all that money and time investigating??

    How come??

    Oh that's right.. Because he said what you wanted to hear.. :D

    I am assuming you have never served in the military or held a security clearance...

    I have, so you're not BS'ing me with that one.

    You still never clarified which one is applicable...

    Michale

  484. [484] 
    Michale wrote:

    All the Republicans can do, after spending 30 million dollars and coming up with bupkis, is to promise more prosecution.

    You mean like Democrats did when they pursued CIA agents for torture...

    Oh wait.. "That's different"....

    Of course it is.. It's ALWAYS "different" when Democrats do it...

    :^/

    Michale

  485. [485] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You mean like Democrats did when they pursued CIA agents for torture...

    I must have missed that 30 million dollar investigation. I don't believe that any CIA agent has been prosecuted for torture, or that anyone has seriously suggested such prosecution. It is the people who ordered the torture that should be held to account.

  486. [486] 
    Michale wrote:

    I must have missed that 30 million dollar investigation. I don't believe that any CIA agent has been prosecuted for torture, or that anyone has seriously suggested such prosecution.

    Yer kidding, right???

    It is the people who ordered the torture that should be held to account.

    So, the people who actually committed the torture....

    Democrats never wanted them prosecuted..

    Seriously, is that what you are saying!???

    Michale

  487. [487] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, the people who actually committed the torture. Democrats never wanted them prosecuted. Seriously, is that what you are saying!?

    As far as I know, Democrats have always been more interested in the policy failure that allowed the torture to take place in the first place.

    What alarms Democrats lately is the cheering that we hear when Trump echoes the words and attitudes of brutal dictators, makes statements that reveal contempt of the Geneva Convention and basic Human Rights, and threatens physical harm to anyone who opposes him in Cleveland. Admit it, he sounds like a Nazi.

  488. [488] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    At this point, the committee has stopped asking Comey any serious questions about his decision, and begun playing to the cameras.

  489. [489] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as I know, Democrats have always been more interested in the policy failure that allowed the torture to take place in the first place.

    Well, you weren't around here during that time...

    Democrats, including virtually all of Weigantia, were calling for the CIA heads' on a platter...

    I could also link to news report from the time, but why bother..

    makes statements that reveal contempt of the Geneva Convention and basic Human Rights,

    Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions nor are they deserving of human rights, so I am not sure where you beef is....

    and threatens physical harm to anyone who opposes him in Cleveland.

    Ya mean like all the Left Wingers and their threats of physical harm against Trump supporters???

    Admit it, he sounds like a Nazi.

    Actually, he sounds like the guys who CONDEMN the Nazis..

    But I would see why that would bother you.... :^/

    Michale

  490. [490] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    At this point, the committee has stopped asking Comey any serious questions about his decision, and begun playing to the cameras.

    Com'on... Do you SERIOUSLY think that ANYONE on that committee were ever NOT playing to the cameras!???

    I know you are smarter than that... :D

    Michale

  491. [491] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I would see why that would bother you.... :^/

    I mean, considering it's the Left Wingery that is bringing the NAZI comparison...

    Michale

  492. [492] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    regarding bush and iraqui nukes: whether or not it was a lie depends on whether or not he genuinely believed there to be nukes. lacking any personal knowledge of president bush or any evidence of what facts he was looking at or what advice he received, i deem whether or not he lied about the nukes inconclusive. i just don't know.

    my view that hillary was not lying about the e-mails is based on director comey's statement - there was no apparent intent to deceive about the 113 out of over 32,000 emails that she missed (less than half a percent). since he is intimately familiar with the facts of the case, i believe i can trust his assessment that clinton's false statements about the e-mails were honest mistakes, at worst attempts to hedge, but certainly not lies.

    JL

  493. [493] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for Hillary Clinton, the hits just keep on coming!! :D

    FBI Director James Comey said Thursday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may not have been "sophisticated enough" to understand the classified markings on emails she sent and received, which explains why did didn't know she was breaking the letter of the law.

    In other words, Hillary Clinton was too stoopid to know she was breaking the law..

    And THAT is ya'all's candidate for POTUS??

    hehehehehehehehehehehehehe :D

    Remember, many of us agreed that we would accept Director Comey's determination of the facts...

    hehehehehehehehehehehe

    This is just TOO perfect.... :D

    Michale

  494. [494] 
    Michale wrote:

    regarding bush and iraqui nukes: whether or not it was a lie depends on whether or not he genuinely believed there to be nukes. lacking any personal knowledge of president bush or any evidence of what facts he was looking at or what advice he received, i deem whether or not he lied about the nukes inconclusive. i just don't know.

    Then, if you don't know, you CAN'T accuse him of lying, nor can you support anyone else who accuses Bush of lying..

    Right???

    my view that hillary was not lying about the e-mails is based on director comey's statement - there was no apparent intent to deceive about the 113 out of over 32,000 emails that she missed (less than half a percent). since he is intimately familiar with the facts of the case, i believe i can trust his assessment that clinton's false statements about the e-mails were honest mistakes, at worst attempts to hedge, but certainly not lies.

    OK, so we agree that Hillary didn't really lie when she claimed she turned over all her work emails. Honest mistake and all that..

    Comey said during the hearing that Hillary WAS untruthful (IE LIED) when she claimed she didn't send or receive classified emails that were classified at the time..

    Your comments???

    And, since you seem to be accepting of Director Comey's word on everything (kudos to you), what's your take on Comey's statements that Hillary was not sophisticated enough to understand classifications.... :D

    Michale

    Michale

  495. [495] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is ALSO still the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation...

    Ya know?? Why couldn't you Democrats get someone more honest as your candidate for POTUS??

    Like maybe Jimmy Hoffa?? Or Whitey Bulger??? Or Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán???

    Jesus......

    Michale

  496. [496] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    regarding "gross negligence," i think people who say that "extreme carelessness" is the same thing are either being disingenuous or ignorant about the difference - in rudy giuliani's case, as an accomplished attorney, i suspect the former.

    the key qualitative difference between carelessness and negligence is whether or not there is HARM.

    the key qualitative difference between negligence and gross negligence is whether the actions are TYPICAL.

    if a doctor performing surgery forgets a suture and the tissue heals without it, there's carelessness but no harm - therefore it's not negligent.

    if the tissue doesn't heal, the patient gets internal bleeding and further surgery is required to fix it, then it's negligent.

    if the same doctor treats the same patient again and tries to suture her with a staple gun from home depot, causing paralysis then it's grossly negligent.

    these distinctions aren't in statute, they're in the case law.

    clinton's actions, though careless, were not negligent because comey couldn't prove harm, and were not so atypical of other state department actions as to make them grossly negligent. to meet that standard in the case law, it would have taken a snowden-level leak, and ironclad, smoking-gun proof that an adversary actually received the information.

    JL

  497. [497] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Then, if you don't know, you CAN'T accuse him of lying, nor can you support anyone else who accuses Bush of lying..

    i don't, i accuse him of poor judgment, AND the clear-as-day consequences of that poor judgment are still being felt in what used to be iraq, as well as by families of the deceased.

    JL

  498. [498] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't, i accuse him of poor judgment, AND the clear-as-day consequences of that poor judgment are still being felt in what used to be iraq, as well as by families of the deceased.

    Fine.. IF we were talking about poor judgement (the kind of poor judgement shown by Hillary Clinton) then you would have addressed my point...

    But we're not talking about poor judgement, we're talking about lying...

    There is no evidence to support that Bush lied..

    Why can't you call a spade a spade and just come out and say it??

    Why all the tip-toeing around what the definition of IS is???

    Michale

  499. [499] 
    Michale wrote:

    Come'on!!!!

    ONE MORE!!!!! :D

    Michale

  500. [500] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    for those keeping count, that's nearly 4500 US soldiers and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. dead. and that's not even counting permanent injuries and PTSD.

    as to hillary's judgment, her mistake was serious but not unusual for political appointees in government. i'd take that over the judgment of the republican nominee any day of the week and twice on weekends.

  501. [501] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Comey said during the hearing that Hillary WAS untruthful (IE LIED) when she claimed she didn't send or receive classified emails that were classified at the time.

    But none were marked 'classified', and the three that were questioned in that regard were incorrectly marked with a classified (c) symbol (in an email attached to an email which was part of an email chain).

    I think that there is reasonable evidence that she believed those statements, and has reason to continue to believe those statements today.

    I find it incredible that the inference that Hillary would have known the exact classification status of every statement made on every attachment to every one of over 30,000 work related emails is even entertained as coherent. I find it unbelievable that an error rate of 1/2 of 1% is considered 'careless'.

  502. [502] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'd take that over the judgment of the republican nominee

    Exactly...

    It's all about REPUBLICAN vs DEMOCRAT.....

    That's all that matters...

    Congrats on #500.... :D

    Michale

  503. [503] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Then, if you don't know, you CAN'T accuse him of lying, nor can you support anyone else who accuses Bush of lying..

    there you go again, taking a point of agreement and transforming it into a different point on which we don't agree. i do not believe the evidence supports the assertion that bush lied about iraqi nukes. if someone else believes it, i'd have to assess their argument and the facts supporting it than knee-jerk refusal to listen or accept their view as valid.

    a point of disagreement doesn't mean a person is an idiot or not deserving of support. that goes for you too.

    JL

  504. [504] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    pardon, i'd have to assess their argument and the facts supporting it RATHER than knee-jerk refusal to listen or accept their view as valid.

  505. [505] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'd take that over the judgment of the republican nominee

    Exactly...

    It's all about REPUBLICAN vs DEMOCRAT.....

    beg pardon. i'd take hillary's worst judgment over the best judgment of the CURRENT republican nominee.

    JL

  506. [506] 
    Michale wrote:

    here you go again, taking a point of agreement and transforming it into a different point on which we don't agree. i do not believe the evidence supports the assertion that bush lied about iraqi nukes. if someone else believes it, i'd have to assess their argument and the facts supporting it than knee-jerk refusal to listen or accept their view as valid.

    And there you go again, having to dis-assemble everything so it makes you look like you are not doing something that might make you unpopular amongst your peers...

    The general accusations from the Left was that Bush lied..

    Do you agree with that?? Yes or no??

    Or you can dis-assemble what the definition of 'is' is..

    Michale

  507. [507] 
    Michale wrote:

    beg pardon. i'd take hillary's worst judgment over the best judgment of the CURRENT republican nominee.

    I know you would..

    That's what makes it so scary....

    Michale

  508. [508] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said.. Why couldn't you find someone more honest with better judgement..

    El Chapo would have been a better choice...

    Michale

  509. [509] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The general accusations from the Left was that Bush lied..

    Do you agree with that?? Yes or no??

    no.

    is that clear enough for you?

    BUT my opinion does not mean that the opposite opinion is invalid, nor that a person holding that opinion is not worthy of support, which is what you tried to turn it into.

    JL

  510. [510] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    to be perfectly clear, the opinion that hillary lied about the e-mails is also a valid opinion to hold - it's just that the evidence she didn't lie is pretty conclusive, so it takes quite a bit more mental gymnastics to claim that she lied than to claim that bush did.

  511. [511] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you agree with that?? Yes or no??

    no.

    is that clear enough for you?

    "Crystal... "
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    t's just that the evidence she didn't lie is pretty conclusive, so it takes quite a bit more mental gymnastics to claim that she lied than to claim that bush did.

    Only if one is partial to one particular political ideology agenda over another...

    In other words, if one supports Hillary and doesn't support Bush...

    Or vercie vicie...

    to be perfectly clear, the opinion that hillary lied about the e-mails is also a valid opinion to hold -

    Thank you.. I'll accept that and we can move on...

    Michale

  512. [512] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Lordy, Lordy... over 500 comments!?!

    OK, I promise to read them all this weekend, how's that?

    Sigh.

    -CW

  513. [513] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M,

    BLACK LIVES PROTEST TURNS MASSACRE
    5 COPS SHOT DEAD IN DALLAS

    Ahhhhhh So THAT'S the "real commitments against the police" that Democrats and (O)BLM are looking to add to the Democrat Party Platform..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.