A point ya'all made ABUNDANTLY clear when Odumbo was caught sharing classified info with the Russians...

Sharing ya'all didn't have a SINGLE PROBLEM with then...

All because of the all-powerful -D after Odumbo's name...

Looks like I got the 100000th comment here!! :D

How apropos that it dealt with Seth Rich being murdered by Democrats to stop him from leaking more Democrat baggage to Wikileaks... :D

I have as much "proof" of that as ya'all have of President Trump colluding with Russians... :D

See, here is where you are exactly wrong..

The POTUS can declassify *ANY* intelligence the US possess but he CAN'T reveal methods and sources..

Once you understand this FACT, then you *should* see the WaPoop BS in it's proper light..

McMasters was simply a step ahead of WaPoop in their NEXT claim that President Trump divulged methods and sources since any "intel" that the President shares, he has the RIGHT to share...

So, once again, ya'all are left with absolutely NOTHING but a nothing-burger w/ extra hysterical sauce and a side of crispy anonymous sources....

If you had just said, "Dems will win the House" it would have shown you have at least a SMALL tenuous grasp on reality... Because the Dims do have slight chance of taking back the House..

VERY slight..

But the Senate!!???

The Dims have to defend 25 seats, and almost HALF of those seats are in states that Trump won, most of them, won handily...

Democrats taking back the Senate is nothing but fantasy and if you honestly and truly believe that it will happen, you are in such a far gone, far off DEM HAPPY SAFE PLACE that you have lost ALL contact with reality...

"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

No, but I have the luxury of being able to state the FACTS and reality without worrying about being politically correct.

Director Comey did not have that luxury..

And the FACTS clearly show that INTENT has nothing to do with prosecuting the relevant statute...

Now, do you want to continue to LOSE when arguing FACTS???

"Don't cross brains with Spock. He'll cut you to pieces every time.."
-Ensign Sulu

When Dems get the House & Senate back in 2018, it will be like when, on the old Lucy show, when Ricky would finally come home:

If you HONESTLY believe that the Dims will be able to get the Senate back in 2018, you are so far down the delusion rabbit hole that there is simply NO WAY you can carry on ANY sort of rational conversation..

It's this EXACT sort of Party zealotry that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to take anything you say seriously..

Dems take the Senate in 2018???

BBBWWWHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's a denial pure and simple...

The other day I was thinking that the sentient Republicans are like Lieutenant Gorman in Aliens. Did you ever see it -- it was the second Ripley movie? Rough plot: Ripley gets dragged into rescue mission to the planet where the Aliens are. She keeps trying to get the folks in charge to stop underestimating the Aliens but they're "military", have nifty weapons, think she's overstating the danger, etc.

So the gang are all suited/weaponed up and are confidently sent into the compound to hunt for survivors. Lieutenant Gorman is back in the spaceship, monitoring events via radio. I've never forgotten his face -- his performance -- as he listens while all hell is breaking loose on his troops. He tries to communicate with them, he's trying to understand what they're screaming. Its that look of dawning comprehension and utter dismay as he realizes he's sent the troops to slaughter.

A lot of Republicans are making those faces, I suspect.

While Michale presumes to know the law regarding Intent better than Comey and certainly several dozen Justice Dept. lawyers, it's an unassailable fact that none was found in this case. Case closed, but damage done. (see also [211]}

Meanwhile, inquiries into Trump's many conflicts, gaffes, and subterfuges has barely begun. He's provided a full menu for investigators and it's not even that far into the new administration.

When Dems get the House & Senate back in 2018, it will be like when, on the old Lucy show, when Ricky would finally come home:

"You've got a lot of 'splainin' to do!"

And the look on GOP faces will be the same that Lucy made as he said it: 'uh oh!'

no.

"The story that came out tonight as reported is false."

and if he had stopped there, i might be more inclined to believe him. however, mcmasters then denied numerous specifics that were not reported, and did not deny any of the specifics that were reported. i don't blame him for trying to do some damage control, but it's a pretty non-denial denial.

JL

No one here seemed to mind when the Obama Administration leaked the identity of the CIA Chief Of Station in Afghanistan...

No one here seemed to mind when DiFi leaked classified drone intel in '09....

No one minded when Obama leaked crucial intel on the STUXNET, intel that was ISRAELI intel... Or when Obama gave away classified secrets when he bragged about taking out Obama Bin Laden....

Apparently, releasing classified intel is *ONLY* a problem or an issue for ya'all when someone with a -R after their name does it..

[201] Goode Trickle: You are right in the sense that going over and over the election and all that is a waste of time and effort at this point. The rolling disaster that is the DT presidency should occupy us -- BUT-- and this is critical to what happens AFTER he implodes/dies/goes to jail, it cannot be stressed enough that DT remains in power only because the Republican Party is supporting him. This is not a battle between DT and America, this is a battle between DT/GOP and America (and the world's good guys. Bad guys like 45).

And, as I have been emphasizing, the GOP has devolved into a powerfully harmful entity. They have a deep bag of tricks. Defeating them starts with knowing how they play the game. One of their tricks is to ensnare Democrats in lose/lose scenarios and then milk them for all they're worth. And my point is Democrats need to become self-aware and recognize when they are being maneuvered into one of these boxes, and call a halt. Refuse to engage on GOP terms. Stop pretending GOP is acting in good faith when they demonstrably are not. Stop giving the GOP any benefit of the doubt.

We don't have to talk about Hillary or Obama ever again, but the next round of Dem leaders needs to start resetting the terms of engagement. They need to cease putting up with abuse. They need to stop enabling the GOP. And so do we.

Ahhh yes... ANONYMOUS sources... In other words made up fake news...

ANONYMOUS sources who are leaking classified intelligence...

Seems no one here has a problem with that...

Ahh yes... As long as it hurts President Trump, it's perfectly acceptable to ya'all...

Double standard much.... :^/

No???

The story that came out tonight as reported is false.
-General McMasters

I dunno...

Sounds like a denial to me.. :D

And WHO reported this to WaPoop...

Ahhh yes... ANONYMOUS sources... In other words made up fake news...

mcmasters did not actually deny that the information was classified. what he said was that it was not, "intelligence sources or methods," or "military operations that were not already publicly known." fine, great, but that's not what the post reported.

what the post DID report was that trump discussed an IS plot, the city where it happened, and the fact that it was found out and shared by allied intelligence. none of this was actually denied by either mcmasters or tillerson.

JL

https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb051117dAPC20170511104645.jpg

And, right on cue, Left Wingery heads start exploding...

President Trump... Puppetmaster... :D

Now all you have to prove is that any of that intel was classified and your home-free...

According to General McMasters, a person who is respected even amongst Weigantians, the hysterical Left is barking up the wrong tree....

AGAIN....

Ya'all can only cry WOLF!!! so many times before the American people just turn ya'all off..

And THAT time has long past...

you know full well that intent doesn't just mean your main motivation, it means that whatever you did wrong, you were trying to do it. whatever else he was trying to accomplish, patraeus was trying to get the intelligence and give it to someone. hillary was not trying to expose classified documents, it happened by accident. based on his twitter statements, donald was trying to share intel with the russians.

"As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. metting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining to terrorism and airline flight safety,
"Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism."

now THAT is intent.

His intent was to get laid..

Ergo, there should not have been any chargers..

NOT-45 didn't have the intent to release classified intelligence. She just wanted to evade FOI requests and keep everything she did private...

Viola' No charges...

Touche' :D

"You're right. You do listen, but you only hear what you want to hear."
"So, I'm right.."
-TWO AND A HALF MEN

:D

with the exception of his response to the chemical attack in syria, yes, that is accurate.

So, I'm right?? :D hehehehehehe

about as correct as saying that based on the POPULAR VOTE, hillary won the election. equally interesting for academic purposes, equally irrelevant to the outcome.

NOTHING about Trump fills you with confidence.

with the exception of his response to the chemical attack in syria, yes, that is accurate.

JL

So, I am correct when I say that UNDER THE STATUTE, intent is not required to prosecute...

while technically true, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

NOTHING about Trump fills you with confidence..

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail :D

And the condemnation from the "tolerant" and "non violent" Left???

{{cccchhhhirrrrrrpppppppppp}} {{cccchhhhiiiiirrrrrrrppppppp}}

Crickets... Nuttin' but crickets...

that's incorrect. two forms of law bear on prosecutorial decisions, statute and case law. ask any attorney and they'll tell you case law is by far the more important of the two. comey didn't say the statute required intent, he said the case law required intent. in order to indict, you need to navigate both. the relevant portion of comey's statement is as follows:

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.

i.e. bringing charges on these facts would have been abnormal and unjustified based on FBI practice and precedent.

anyhow, why make russia go through all the trouble of hiring hackers when it's so much easier to just share all that top secret information in person? tillerson and mcmaster were very detailed in explaining the specific types of intel that trump didn't share. donald himself contradicted their implication that nothing sensitive was shared, by saying that he has the right to share intel if he wants to. while technically true, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

JL

:D

Something YOU don't have..

Where are your facts to support your claim, Balthy??

Anonymous sources from WaPoop, a rag that has had to print HUNDREDS of retractions of bullshit they have printed...

On the other hand, *I* have a statement from a respected eyewitness who's integrity is above reproach, even amongst Weigantians..

All you have is anonymous sources and a willingness to believe ANYTHING, as long as it is against President Trump..

I win. You lose...

And as I have pointed out and provided facts to support and NO ONE has been able to refute...

Comey was wrong.. INTENT is not required to be prosecuted under the statute...

So it all dissolved into vapor. At a political cost to Hillary, of course. That damage was done.

Which is it??

Vapor or political cost..

It can't be both...

If it were the vapor you WANT it to be, then the American people would have voted for Hillary above and beyond just the sickos in California (Present company excepted, of course.. :D)

So, it sounds like yer full of kaa-kaa and it wasn't just "vapor" but rather a really meaningful problem for tens of millions of Americans..

Trump, on the other hand, revealed valuable ultra-top secret information directly to the Russians

WHich has already proven to be complete and utter bullshit.. AS I have provided the facts to support...

Something YOU don't have..

Michale [210]: Breaking news: Trump admits sharing classified information, says it was for 'humanitarian' reasons. You can't make this stuff up.

Apparently, YOU can.. As you have done throughout this entire commentary.. Like when you made up that Trump WASN'T a successful businessman when even your bozo said he was..

https://twitter.com/i/moments/864446064639848448

"..no charges are appropriate in this case."

If she had intentionally done ANY of the things that her accusers said she'd done, she'd be in court today. She didn't. Certified by the F-B-I.

So it all dissolved into vapor. At a political cost to Hillary, of course. That damage was done.

Then Comey resurrected the ghost of emailgate for a few days very late in the campaign. According to Nate Silver, that's when Hillary's numbers slipped enough in key districts to cost her the election.

Trump, on the other hand, revealed valuable ultra-top secret information directly to the Russians while bragging about the great information he gets. In the process, he trolled an ally, and might have set back the war on Isis. This while breaking every protocol about Oval Office meetings with the Russians and grinning and gripping for the Russian media, who were invited in while the America Press was kept out.

Have fun defending this guy.

At no time, at no time, where intelligent sources or methods discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present, including the Secretary of the State, remember the meeting the same way and have said so. Their on the record accounts should outweigh anonymous sources. I was in the room. It didn't happen.
LT. GEN. H.R. McMASTER
National Security Advisor

Like I said.. They only thing accurate about WaPoop "journalism" is when they print the retractions...

Democrats... :eyeroll:

Democrats to NOT-45

LEAVE ALREADY!!!

This is what's known as a "dodge". It doesn't address the argument, it attempts to stop the argument by insulting it. But it fails.

Actually, it's not a dodge, but a logical and rational assessment of the facts.

When it comes to NOT-45, you and Balthy are simply incapable of any rational or logical discussion.. In ya'all's eyes, NOT-45 is perfect and can do absolutely NO WRONG...

Any discussion with ya'all on NOT-45 must take that FACT into account..

Are you channeling Sgt. Schultz now?

One has to wonder if you and Balthy can appreciate the irony here..

When it comes to NOT-45, it's you and Balthy who are Sgt Schulz..

Ya'all see nothing, ya'all hear nothing, ya'all know nothing...

I love the smell of irony in the morning.. :D

Contributions or gifts to Onward Together, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions.
http://ntknetwork.com/hillary-clinton-launches-unlimited-dark-money-group/

Of course, with NOT-45, it's all about the money....

Who in their right mind would back this TWO TIME Luser???

yikes! if reports are accurate, trump shared top secret intel with the russian ambassador in the oval office the day after firing comey...

It's from WaPoop...

You can bet the report is bullshit, but the retraction will be accurate...

'Sides.. The only info President Trump relayed was what he found on NOT-45's email server..

According to Paula, Balthy, et al, NONE of it was classified.. :D

And the Russians already had the info after hacking NOT-45's server anyways.. heh :D

Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story

If this story came out about Trump and Russia, ya'all would be all over it like stink on rice...

That's your problem, Balthy..

You out and out LIE to make your case..

"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

Further, it's NOT a "State Dept Rule", it's US LAW...

Although Clinton was finally berated into calling her use of a private server a 'mistake', there's no evidence that she did anything wrong.

There is PLENTY of evidence that proves NOT-45 broke the law and "did something wrong"..

But you don't accept those facts because they go against your ideology...

It was not 'secretiveness' that vexed Hillary, it was the press's decision to cynically chase a story that they knew was being hyped by her political opponents, and ultimately dissolved into vapor before all of our eyes.

And here you are contradicting yourself..

On the one hand, you claim that the story caused NOT-45 to lose the election. On the other hand, you now claim that the story "dissolved into vapor" IE there was nothing to it...

Make up your mind....

This is just like your claim about Donald Trump's business success..

Out and out bullshit... Easily exposed...

It's funny how those who are now screaming FOR an SP for Donald Trump were the EXACT SAME ONES who were screaming **AGAINST** an SP when it was NOT-45..

Party zealotry and bigotry... At it's finest...

So easy to get distracted...

I hope an SP is enough. Trump's lawyers will surely argue that impeachment is the only way to remove a sitting president, and Republicans hold all three branches.

Until the midterms, it's all up to Paul effin Ryan.

To use some sailor parlance... litigating HRC and any issue surrounding the past election is simply falling into the GOP trap of going BUT...BUT...BUT... It does nothing but divide. In other words it is like slamming ones genital appendages in a hatch repeatedly and hoping it will eventually feel good.

It should give pause that left center, center left, and left folks are busy still litigating the election and are fighting each other once a good loyalist has baited them ... does it need to be discussed and a way forward found? Most certainly... However, I would posit now is not the time.

EVERYONE, be they center, center left, center right, left, or right, should be demanding a SP be named that BOTH parties agree upon to get to the bottom of this spiraling fecal fountain.

At the end of the day I feel like I am back in Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua, where someone has lit off a trash fire with a sousant of shit...or perhaps in ODS on shit burning day, nothing is better than the smell of burning oil fields and shit... it smells like victory or bullshit. In both cases I can smell the smoke but I can't see the flames and the lung infection is mighty...

It is long past time for EVERYONE to start calling out those who do not support a SP on why they do not and refuse to discuss anything else until they definitively lay out why they do not....and they should be LOUDLY stating "I don't give two fucks about the past (I myself am out of fucks to give and am waiting on my Amazon Prime order of fucks to be filled) I am interested in the present."

Until we start standing up and demanding our elected "reps" start answering to the people and as long as the electorate engages in infighting... guess what, we are doomed to being stuck with living under the thumb of those who bought them... and that my friends is just insanity.

At the end of the day, this is America and EVERYONE is entitled to their point of view, but, they should also be held accountable in precise terms that require answering hard questions about why they do not support the right maneuvers to get to the bottom of the matter in a nonpartisan fashion.

Surely, it can be agreed upon that Congress is not up to the job...and as such an SP is the only way forward.

Setting soap box to "off" mode... The problem of the moment is certainly more important than assessing blame or victory of the past...

JL: I think that what is vexing for Paula, and she isn't alone, is that the republican frame of this story is false from the outset: it wasn't illegal for Clinton to either own a personal server, nor to conduct non-classified work on it.

There was a State Dept. rule that stated that all classified communications should be conducted on a government server. By all accounts, Hillary dutifully followed that rule.

In 2014, when State Dept. officials asked for her work related emails (printed out on pages), she had her lawyers deliver 30,000 of them to the State Dept. Similar requests were made of previous Secretaries of State Madeline Albright, several of whom had similar personal servers and archived emails.

In Feb. 2016, the State Dept IG announced that his office had found classified material in 10 emails in the personal email accounts of members of former Secretary Condoleezza Rice's staff and in two emails in the personal email account of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was the only other SoS to have a personal server. Clinton's campaign manager told the press that Clinton's predecessors had, retroactively, been victims of the same "over-classification" that she had.

After an extensive investigation that included retrieving and examining thousands of emails, including searching for emails from previously wiped files, Comey finally concluded that a total of three email attachments that would have been contemporaneously deemed 'classified' were found buried within. Those attachments - prior emails far down in an attachment chain - were poorly marked, and could have been easily missed. Their classifications were of the lowest order, one that approximately a million workers in the DC area are entitled to see.

I repeat all of this to emphasize the extremely trivial nature of the facts, compared to the firestorm that the GOP whipped up about it.

Although Clinton was finally berated into calling her use of a private server a 'mistake', there's no evidence that she did anything wrong. She did not, after all, deliberately conduct classified business on her private server, made all of her work-related emails available to anyone who wanted to investigate them, and complied with the law.

What did she do wrong? Nothing. To say otherwise is to accept the Republican party line, which is 1) Hillary is always wrong, and 2) Republicans are always right. It's just not so.

It was not 'secretiveness' that vexed Hillary, it was the press's decision to cynically chase a story that they knew was being hyped by her political opponents, and ultimately dissolved into vapor before all of our eyes.

Unfortunately, she was unable to effectively fight back. I, for one, don't understand why.

Maybe it would be helpful if you set out Comey's options ...

I did not say HE was an abuser, that is you misunderstanding or mischaracterizing my position. I have said the GOP is the abuser. Comey was inept and sanctimonious and cowardly. But he, too, was a victim of GOP abuse.

And it was abuse. And HRC was abused by the GOP. And GOP abuse of power is lightyears beyond anything Democrats do or have ever done. And your refusal to recognize that places you in the camp of FALSE EQUIVALENCY purveyors. And FE purveyors contribute to the continuation of GOP abuse by excusing it on the grounds that "both sides do it". That is false and it is enabling.

But hey, it's true. HRC had a private email server and it was against the rules. By your logic that means everything that happened once the republican worms discovered it is justified. You know, like it really doesn't matter when prostitutes get raped by cops, or some black guy stole some cigarettes so it was fine that the cops shot him to death, or an illegal alien is exploited by an employer since he/she was already breaking the law.

What HRC was subjected to was disproportionate to the offense. She was subjected to it because the GOP had the ability to abuse her and used it. They are the cops who rape/beat/torture people in their custody.

They also subjected Obama to non-stop abuse throughout his administration. They stole a Supreme Court seat. And they are now ripping the country to shreds. They got to this point because too many people for too long kept pretending that the ratfuckers didn't fuck rats. Well they do. The rats don't deserve it. HRC didn't deserve it. Barack Obama didn't deserve it. America doesn't deserve it.

And when Comey did his stunts, he helped the GOP ratfuckers. Intentionally, unintentionally, unconsciously, doesn't matter. He had any number of choices about HOW he could carry out his assignment. The approach he chose was as damaging as he could make it under the circumstances. You keep skipping that part. You keep pretending he "just did his job". You refuse to acknowledge he had options.

I didn't say it was your fault HRC lost the election. I am saying it is your fault that you refuse to include in your assessment the fact that HRC was on the receiving end of ratfucking of the highest order, some of which was delivered via Mr. Comey.

"I beat you because you made me mad."

this accusation is still inaccurate and still an insult to victims of domestic violence. there's no equivalency, real OR imagined. hillary shares responsibility for the damage done to her campaign by her e-mail scandal, while director comey does not.

comey is NOT accountable because his job was to investigate and decide whether or not to prosecute, and that's what he did. the AG put the additional role of public explanation on his plate, so he did that too. in no way shape or form did he abuse his power as director.

hillary IS accountable because she made a series of poor decisions to keep her communications out of the public domain. it may not have been illegal, but it was certainly a poor decision. this isn't some fabricated mistake like benghazi. there were seven benghazi investigations and not one of them bore fruit because there was no substance to the accusations. in the case of the e-mails, the accusations did have substance.

i voted for hillary clinton twice, and i am certain she would have made an excellent president. however, hillary was not the victim of domestic violence, she was the victim of her own secretiveness. that she lost is not james comey's fault, and it's not mine.

JL

You are part of the problem.

All done now.

after the news of trump blurting out sensitive information to the russian minister, it would not be surprising to find out intelligence professionals started limiting the scope of the presidential briefings.

@paula,

in my opinion, asking if a political party has abused its powers is like asking if the pope is catholic or if a bear defecates in the woods; that's the way things have been since politics were invented. hillary abused her authority by setting up the private server to begin with. chaffetz abused his authority by leaking comey's letter to the press. comey did not abuse his authority, period, full stop.

JL

[188] what does any of this have to do with james comey? what's irrational is not being able to tell the difference between different situations and different people.

It was another example of GOP abuse. As emailgate isn't the only one.

And my question stands: do you believe the GOP has abused their powers?

I wonder if US intel agencies are telling the president everything they know because they don't trust that Trump knows how to handle the intel.

What frustrates me about all of this is that, as usual, we're missing the forest for the trees. Meaning what is needed is an intelligent discussion
about what an effective US foreign policy in the greater Middle East looks like. Because what is being done now and what has been done since 9/11 is not working.

You always write something that makes me chuckle. This was today's. Yes, you're right. That's the part that enraged Democrats.

But now, the same Republicans who chided Hillary because someone might hack her private emails (which nobody ever did, by the way) now have to answer for Trump, who has apparently blurted out top secret information to the Russians. Let's see if their concern for National Security is real or not this time. I'm guessing they'll weasel on it.

Another important aspect to all of this is the fact that Comey made a commitment to congress when he testified about the email investigation.

They asked for and he gave them a commitment that he would inform them if any new information came to light.

This was a perfectly reasonable commitment to make, by the way, given all of the circumstances involved.

But, I have a general question for you. Why is it that you are unable to attach any blame for this unfortunate string of events to the Clintons?

that is incorrect. AG lynch's statement both left the decision up to the fbi and put forth that the decision should be publicly explained. comey's "editorializing" was little more than the judgment that setting up the private server to handle government e-mails was a bad decision - as if that were even in doubt.

Secondly, you are speculating about Huma Abedin -- were you there? Do you know "what they had to know?" You don't.

of course i don't know, but as a professional political operative, it was her job to know about potentially damaging information. if she didn't know then she should have, and therefore shares responsibility for the damage either way.

And there is nothing irrational about my comparison. I am saying the GOP has been abusive in their misuse of power. Can you deny that? Or do you think its just AOK that they do 7 fucking Benghazi investigations? Do you really believe Obama or HRC had something to hide with that? That they had any malicious intent?

what does any of this have to do with james comey? what's irrational is not being able to tell the difference between different situations and different people.

JL

Secondly, you are speculating about Huma Abedin -- were you there? Do you know "what they had to know?" You don't. You're just opining and, once again, skipping over the point which is that the entirety of emailgate was an overhyped creation of the GOP. You wanna point the finger at HRC, you can. You might also say to yourself: Gee, all these SOS's keep doing the same thing with their emails. Could it be there's a technological/institutional problem that needs handling? Maybe we should say: "HIllary, you shouldn't have done this. Nor should have the last two SOS's. Stop doing it. Meanwhile, how can we make your life easier with respect to email and classified materials?"

There was a continuum on which the email snafu could have been viewed. The GOP, as always, took it to eleven.

And there is nothing irrational about my comparison. I am saying the GOP has been abusive in their misuse of power. Can you deny that? Or do you think its just AOK that they do 7 fucking Benghazi investigations? Do you really believe Obama or HRC had something to hide with that? That they had any malicious intent?

If you don't think the GOP has been abusing their power then we have nothing further to say.

If you agree they have been abusing their power then take the next step and look at what they did to HRC through that lens. If you don't want to, fine, we're done.

*sigh*

JL

nobody is letting comey off the hook, because he should never have been on any hook. it was not his job to gate-keep information based on how or when politicians might or might not use it.

abedin on the other hand was in a position to release all the information she had at a time when it would have been less damaging, and somehow didn't. it's understandable that one wouldn't want to provide the opposition with extra ammunition at any point in the campaign, but they had to know the possibility existed that it might come out before the election. therefore, abedin is not the victim, she's a political operative who made a political calculation, which ultimately cost her candidate.

your own framing of this as "domestic abuse" is just as irrational as the GOP frame of it as "crime of the century," possibly even moreso.

JL

So, you don't view Trump's trade deal with (non-currency manipulating) China as another example of the globalization he campaigned against, nor his sop to corporate farmers about their workers violating his campaign promises either?

Why are you railing against a left wing pundit and ignoring the real life examples I offered? As in the facts and reality, not hysteria.

And, you've been very good recently about not lumping us all in together here, but you slipped up in this comment.

As for the previous discussion, your silence has been noted.

A

Thanks for making my point about the correlation between hyper-partisanship and nonsensical arguments. I'm out of time for non-serious contentions.

This is what's known as a dodge. It doesn't address the argument, it attempts to stop the argument by insulting it.

Adios!

You are continuing to do the same thing. You let Comey off the hook for his decision to inform Chaffetz when any sentient being should have known what Chaffetz would do (2 weeks before the election!!!), AND you blame the victim -- in this case Huma -- for what? She was the one being persecuted via this unnecessary witch-hunt in the first place. There is no evidence to suggest she was hiding this information. Shouldn't the FBI have checked Wiener's laptop previously? Didn't they?

You continue to illustrate my point: you have accepted the GOP's terms of engagement, allowing them to turn non-scandals into scandals and then blaming every Dem they catch in their net.

Thanks for making my point about the correlation between hyper-partisanship and nonsensical arguments. I'm out of time for non-serious contentions.

chaffetz obviously, since he leaked it. but also abedin, since she should reasonably have been aware enough of the forwards beforehand to make them available for the initial investigation. if she had done so, comey wouldn't have discovered them and chaffetz wouldn't have leaked them.

JL

It is a clear sign of hyper-partisanship that would seek to chalk everything up to the GOP frame.

This is what's known as a "dodge". It doesn't address the argument, it attempts to stop the argument by insulting it. But it fails.

Are you channeling Sgt. Schultz now?

And neither was the stupid fucking Anthony Weiner email backup. But Comey informed Chaffetz -- a known hack with an axe out for HRC -- and then wants to be off the hook for the fact that Chaffetz immediately leaked it. 2 weeks before the election.

Now, who's to blame there? Comey? Chaffetz? Both?

No, you and Liz and all the other enablers blame Hillary. Which.Is.Bullshit.

That's your opinion borne solely and completely of Party zealotry... Comey saw his job and his obligation to the American people differently...

Thank the gods...

Several people around him, reportedly, advised him not to do that.

Because it was THEIR job to protect NOT-45.. At the expense of the American people...

As I have said, and Balthasar has said repeatedly, it was NOT the decision it was how the decision was delivered. Had Comey limited himself to announcing the results without accompanying editorializing, he would not have been subjected to the well-merited criticism he received from Dems. He WOULD have been hammered from the right because they wanted a guilty verdict -- there was no escaping their disappointment or rage. But in an effort to soften it, or because he's just a pompous twerp, he tried to soften rightwing anger by telling America HRC was irresponsible, etc.

Try grasping the difference between:

"She's not guilty." and "She's not guilty BUT! slur, slur, slur, slur."

It was his job to deliver the "no charges." It was not his job to deliver the accompanying lecture. Several people around him, reportedly, advised him not to do that. He did it anyway. He is responsible for the outcry that followed.

As a Republican, his behavior was going to be scrutinized closely for any appearance of partisanship. He provided that appearance in spades.

A+ values, F- policies, so to speak...

Oh shit... NOW what do I do!!??? :D heh

Thank you....

guilty as charged, and point conceded.

JL

You consistently ignore the facts of this matter, particularly the role of then AG Lynch, or non-roll as the case may be.

Ignoring facts can tend to make ones contentions nonsensical.

after the backlash over the comey firing, is it cynical to think this was calculated? i don't think so.

Once upon a time, the Left congratulated Obama for doing the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons...

I guess that only applies to Presidents with -Ds after their names.. :D

but comey's presser, after laying out the facts, said exactly the opposite, that it was a poor decision rather than a crime. this is why your argument about it makes no sense.

It makes PERFECT sense when one applies the NOT-45 CAN DO NO WRONG zealotry.....

That doesn't make any sense, Paula ...

but comey's presser, after laying out the facts, said exactly the opposite, that it was a poor decision rather than a crime. this is why your argument about it makes no sense.

JL

And, IF that point comes, IF the facts support it, then I will concede the point.. Just like I did with Obama..

But I am not going to concede the point just on the basis of some Party fanatic's say-so...

If it ever comes to pass, I'll concede the point based on facts and reality.. Not conjecture, supposition and hysterical Party zealotry....

As I mentioned above, it's hard to take ya'all seriously when the Left Wingery screams hysterically about President Trump getting two scoops of Ice Cream and those that DON'T scream hysterically about it lets such irrational hysteria pass un-condemned...

Silence gives assent

Until such time as the Left has logical and rational arguments against Trump, we'll be where we are right now...

after the backlash over the comey firing, is it cynical to think this was calculated? i don't think so.

JL

First: it is true that Hillary's email is small potatoes compared to DT crimes.
But it is equally true that DT is getting away with his crimes because the GOP is allowing him to.

The GOP is co-equally responsible for every horrible thing DT does because they have the power to stop him and won't, as yet, use it. So it isn't just a matter of DT versus HRC. It's a matter of DT and the GOP vs. HRC (and Dems in general).

Second: another step back, the fact that there ever was an emailgate is an example of republican abuse. It was a non-scandal turned into a scandal by republicans.

While Joshua and Elizabeth pass the smelling salts back and forth I stand by my contention: arguing about Comey's stupid presser means you are accepting the GOP frame, which was that emailgate was a gigantic crime rather than a questionable decision. I don't accept the frame. And I am pointing out that so long as Dems DO allow the GOP to dictate completely unfair terms of engagement Dems will always lose.

Finally, the GOP has abused their powers for years. ABUSED their powers. The damage they cause through that abuse is real. It is serious. Every time a Dem makes excuses for GOP abuses or plays along with GOP abuses they are "enabling", and every time they blame Hillary or Obama for inciting GOP abuse they are playing into the batterer's mantra: "I wouldn't have hit you if you hadn't made me mad."

You are now just making stuff up.

Before you chimed in with your nonsense, Balthy went off on a tangent that wasn't relevant to my comment. So lumping us in together when we weren't even agreeing doesn't make any sense in the first place.
"Military style patriotism" was never written by anyone, including you, and has nothing to do with our discussion. You are also trying to create a differentiation that doesn't exist. The word patriotism has one definition and there isn't a requirement for military service.

As for your debate on globalization with Balthy which is also irrelevant to my comment, Trump just signed a trade deal with China to benefit frackers (and increase US LNG exports thus driving up our domestic costs by reducing the supply... yay!!! higher electricity bills AND more water and air pollution) and US credit card companies (expanding the reach of unethical exploiters of the masses), and which opened the US market to Chinese banks (like we need more corrupt bankers) and, of all things, Chinese cooked chicken (like that won't harm US workers and anybody that eats it)... and today promised American farmers they would have all the immigrant labor they needed because his crackdown wouldn't be targeting their workers.

At some point, you're going to realize that you were conned... just like with Obama... and just like Dems would have been with Hillary.

Trump is serving Wall Street too.
Andrew Levine (link above) was absolutely correct.
Balthy took issue with it, but it's true.
"by voting against Clintonism, what Trump voters got is an exceptionally nasty Clintonite"

The 2016 election was heads they win, tails we lose.

A

Emphasis mine...

That's true for EVERY shrill and hysterical accusation that the Left hurls at the Right.. And vicie versie...

Terrorist... Arsonist... Racist... and so many more...

Any time those slurs are hurled in and solely for a POLITICAL context, it cheapens and demeans the victims of those vile and disgusting actions...

I can pin point the EXACT moment that Left/Right relations hit the shitter and our political dialogue became open warfare...

It was when Democrats referred to Republicans are "terrorists".....

hillary's e-mails mattered in terms of damaging her campaign. criminally speaking, we're in agreement that it's small potatoes. we share the view that donald's mistakes have been much worse than hillary's, and that the public tends to draw a false equivalency between them. so in that sense we agree as well.

however, my point was that it's not the job of law enforcement to anticipate and adjust for the political consequences of their investigations. comey did his job and presented the public with his factual findings on clinton's e-mails (and his team's evaluation of them) without respect to any ends justifying his means.

irrespective of their severity, investigations of trump and his allies are still in the early stages, and are therefore not ready for public consumption. the implication of criticisms against comey is that he should have made his decisions and released the results of both investigations at the same time, based on the potential political ramifications. as bad as the political consequences may be, my belief is that this expectation is not merited, since the investigations were in different stages.

JL

President Trump... Making America Great Again....

That needed to be said, Joshua.

I wonder what things Paula had to say about Biden before he was chosen to be Obama's running mate ... ? I'm just sayin ...

Which is 10000% totally and completely irrelevant because, at the time, all of your "happened since then" hadn't happened..

Comey was making decisions based on the there and then, not the here and now..

Michale's protests notwithstanding, Trump has so many legal questions that an entire wing of the Justice Department could be opened just to investigate them.

That's your opinion and, as I have aptly proven beyond any doubt, it's the opinion of a Party ideologue...

The flaws of Hillary and the Crimes of the Donald are not equivalent. If every charge against Hillary were proven true, it would still be kids stealing candy compared to the corruption and blatant disregard for the law that Trump has demonstrated.

So, your argument is that NOT-45's a crook, but Trump is worse so NOT-45 should get a pass...

Nice argument... :D That was sarcasm, in case you missed it...

With a brick bat if I had my way.

Yer just pissy because I totally decimated your TRUMP IS NOT A BUSINESS SUCCESS claim... :D

With a brick bat if I had my way.

The trouble with making the case that Hillary's email dust-up mattered, is that everything that's happened since makes that case look like puny potatoes.

Michale's protests notwithstanding, Trump has so many legal questions that an entire wing of the Justice Department could be opened just to investigate them.

Pre-presidency questions range from sexual assault to lying under oath to tax evasion, and that just scratches the surface. There's an entire Wikipedia page devoted just to lawsuits filed against Trump.

Post-inauguration charges could stem from conflicts of interest, international money laundering, collusion with a foreign power to affect the election, and obstruction of justice, just to name a few areas of interest already opened.

The longer that we maintain the fiction that Hillary's email dustup is in any way equivalent to the tsunami of legal problems that Trump's corruption machine brings to the table, the more folks like Al and Dan can draw their false equivalencies.

The flaws of Hillary and the Crimes of the Donald are not equivalent. If every charge against Hillary were proven true, it would still be kids stealing candy compared to the corruption and blatant disregard for the law that Trump has demonstrated.

I'm gonna get my wee wee slapped for that one, ain't I? :D

http://www.bbc.com/news/39923510

Macron selects Republican as PM.

"President Macron faces crucial parliamentary elections next month and may need the support of the centre right to push through his planned economic reforms."

In case you didn't know, his "reforms" are attacks on workers rights and wages, and giveaways to corporations.

No wonder Obama supported him.

A

Oh come on.. I want to hear you weasel out of the fact that you got caught in a stone cold lie when you claimed "Oh, but she didn't. That was the allegation. What they determined in the end was that a handful of emails on her server were retroactively marked as classified by some agency"

Because, as the FACTS clearly show, MANY documents that NOT-45 sent thru her private insecure hackable bathroom closet email server were, in fact, classified at the time they were sent...

So you should address this egregious lie you just told..

You owe us that much at least.. :D

"I think I'm entitled to the truth"
-Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

:D

By refusing to recognize the abuse the GOP engages in you help continue it. By placing the blame on the victims rather than the perps you are enabling the perps.

That pre-supposes that there WAS abuse... The facts clearly show that the ONLY abuse came from NOT-45 and her attitude that the laws didn't apply to her..

As the facts CLEARLY prove beyond ANY doubt, NOT-45 was the perp and the victim was the American people...

I respect ya'all's opinion but it is just that. An opinion...

Our discussion began with patriotism... your false reasoning in order to wrap yourself in the flag by claiming only those who have served in the military can comment on the topic... my pointing out that that's an obviously false argument that doesn't match any definition of the word, and is like saying only those who have been elected can comment on politics, and that nobody has used that argument to dismiss your opinions on politics... blah blah blah.

Simply not factual..

I was pointing out that ya'all's claim to know military style patriotism because ya'all's respective fathers were military was complete and utter felgercarb...

I further pointed out that Balthy's idea of patriotism is supporting Open Borders and globalization which means making the US no different than any third rate banana republic...

Which lead into the discussion that ya'all know military style patriotism because your father's served..

blaa blaaa blaaa...

Anyone who supports the Left Wingery's idea of Open Borders and the US just being another cog in the Globalization wheel simply cannot lay claim to the patriotism...

It's like claiming that "by and large, illegal immigrants obey the law"

The very statement refutes the point that the statement is claiming...

the leak of comey's letter to the house committee was not his doing and was misrepresented in the press, for which it's therefore inappropriate to blame comey himself.

If Comey sent that letter to Chaffetz thinking Chaffetz would not use it to his advantage, Comey was a moron. It's quite possible that he was. But there it is. I notice you aren't really talking about Chaffetz's role in this either -- you are still blaming HRC for actions taken by Comey and Chaffetz.

I use the batterer comparison because that's exactly what's going on.

By refusing to recognize the abuse the GOP engages in you help continue it. By placing the blame on the victims rather than the perps you are enabling the perps.

So, disagreeing with anybody who dismisses Biden is one approach to life?

Switching the words does make a profound difference... not that I'm dismissing you by disagreeing or disagreeing by dismissing your argument.

A

Ah.
It seems you are the one with the comprehension issues again.

You are arguing against a point I didn't make.

Our discussion began with patriotism... your false reasoning in order to wrap yourself in the flag by claiming only those who have served in the military can comment on the topic... my pointing out that that's an obviously false argument that doesn't match any definition of the word, and is like saying only those who have been elected can comment on politics, and that nobody has used that argument to dismiss your opinions on politics... blah blah blah.

I am well aware that the merit of your arguments is challenged regularly and often correctly, but that is a generalized overview. I was arguing against the specific approach you used above in order to dismiss the patriotism of Balthy and myself.

A

that's simply not the case. from comey's july 6 presser:

"Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

Point is, it was Republicans who took a broken rule and turned it into the crime of the century. They did it because they had the power to do it, and they did it maliciously. And when you buy into their frame, you help them in their malicious activity.

that's incorrect as well. a fact like "classified top secret at the time they were sent," is not a "frame." what makes facts factual is that they can at least in theory be proven 100% true or 100% false. hillary's error may not have been a "crime of the century," but failing to acknowledge that it happened does not help her cause any more now than it did then.

Comey's announcement exonerating HRC affected the election, but it was the Wiener-laptop announcement that broke it.

there are many factors that affected the election. yes, this was blown out of proportion by conservatives, but it was still a self-inflicted wound by the clinton camp. the leak of comey's letter to the house committee was not his doing and was misrepresented in the press, for which it's therefore inappropriate to blame comey himself.

In your defense of Comey you are siding with the batterer and blaming the beaten wife.

that analogy is so far out of bounds it's in the parking lot. hillary is not a beaten wife, and comey is not a batterer. these are very serious crimes against women that happen in real life, and it demeans the real victims of domestic abuse to reduce them to a series of mistakes in a political campaign.

JL