Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 24 of 46
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, you really DO have a man-crush on Putin!
Yanno, *I* certainly don't bring him up - at all. And yet, there you are, dragging him in to every single conversation that's about pretty much everything else. I'm sure if we were discussing how blue the sky is, you'd be bringing up ... Putin.
Do you think you could possibly NOT mention him for an entire thread, if the thread's not about Putin? Or are you too obsessed?
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ok some clarity is needed here. For all you who wish to criticize Clinton please feel free. I too have many, and I mean many reasons I am not happy with having to vote for her. Trump is out of the question. I would be remiss however, if I failed to remind all about the hypocrisy of SIG and 1kiki feigning disgust with Clinton, while defending everything Putin does. And let’s face the facts folks, check the threads, they defend everything Putin does without exception. It is literality impossible to be so dismayed by what Clinton does, yet not be even skeptical with what Putin does.
Raise your hand if you haven’t figured out why. I’ll give a hint. Think comrade trolls.
____________________________________________
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many other instances where the Justice Department prosecuted people, and sent them to jail, for much less than what Hillary did. By focusing on Gen Petraeus, these people are burying the fact that others have been jailed for doing EXACTLY what Hillary did. What is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence"?
Oh, uh ... the answer is... legally ... none:
Quote:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18):
With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing: The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.
It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-l
et-hillary-hook
Furthermore, Hillary smilingly lied, time and time again, when pressed to describe her email practices. Everything she said was a lie.
1) "Hillary Clinton never sent any classified information, or emails containing information marked 'classified'". FALSE Clearly, classified material was found in her emails.
2) Hillary Clinton turned over all work-related emails to the State Department: Nope. FALSE even Comey agreed this wasn't the case.
3) "Hillary Clinton was allowed to use a private e-mail server." FALSE No, Comey disagrees again: “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for” some of the information she was sharing.
4) "Hillary Clinton’s server was not hacked by foreign adversaries" versus the FBI finding:. FALSE “She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-missing
-emails-secretary-state-department-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These people were prosecuted for negligent (i.e. "intent" not required) mis-handling of classified information
JOHN DEUTCH
Deutch was CIA director from May 1995 until December 1996. He came under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland. An internal CIA investigation found that he stored and processed hundreds of files of highly classified material on unprotected home computers that he and family members also used to connect to the Internet, making the information potentially vulnerable to hackers. A report by the Defense Department inspector general found that Deutch had failed to follow "the most basic security precautions" and faulted him for rejecting Pentagon requests that security systems be installed on his home computers.
SANDY BERGER
Berger was the national security adviser during Bill Clinton's second term. After leaving office, he found himself in trouble for destroying classified documents.
Berger, who died in December at age 70, pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it. The materials related to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.
He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, and though he avoided prison time, he lost access to classified information
BRYAN NISHIMURA
Nishimura, a former Naval reservist in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 and a regional engineer for the U.S. military, was investigated for downloading and storing classified information on his personal electronic devices.
Prosecutors say he carried the materials with him off-base in Afghanistan and took classified Army records to his home in Folsom, California, after his deployment ended.
His lawyer, William Portanova, said Nishimura never intended to break the law but was a "pack rat" who thought nothing of warehousing Army records at home alongside personal belongings.
FBI agents who searched his home found classified military records, both in hard copy and digital form. Nishimura also admitted to investigators that he had destroyed some of the information.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-fede
ral-cases-on-handling-classified-information
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Compared to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton presents herself as the well-qualified steady hand to manage U.S. foreign policy over the next four years, yet she has associated herself with a series of failed strategies and now faces an FBI judgment that she was "extremely careless" in protecting national security secrets.
A partial list of her dubious and dangerous judgments include voting for the catastrophic Iraq War, pushing for a misguided counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan, embracing an anti-democratic coup in Honduras, devising the disastrous Libyan "regime change," undercutting President Obama's efforts to peacefully constrain Iran's nuclear program, advocating a new invasion of Syria under the guise of creating "safe zones," likening Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler, and -- now according to FBI Director James Comey -- failing to protect classified material from possible exposure to foreign adversaries.
Clinton admits that some of her judgments were "mistakes," such as believing President George W. Bush's blatant falsehoods about Iraq's alleged WMDs and using a personal email server to communicate regarding her duties as Secretary of State. But -- arguably even more troubling -- is the fact that she doesn't regard other of her official judgments as mistakes. Instead, she holds to them still or spins them in deceptive ways.
For instance, Clinton has never expressed regret about her support for the ouster of progressive Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, or her siding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus against President Obama in mouse-trapping him into a foolhardy counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan, or her sabotaging Obama's plan in 2010 to use Brazil and Turkey to convince Iran to surrender much of its refined uranium, or her propagandistic justification for bombing Libya in 2011 and leaving behind what amounts to a failed state, or her similar scheming for "regime change" in Syria that helped expand terrorist movements in the Middle East and has now destabilized Europe, or her reckless demonizing of Russia's Putin and encouragement of a dangerous new Cold War.
In many of those cases, Clinton has not been called on to apologize or admit error because Washington's neoconservative/liberal interventionist foreign-policy establishment marched in lock-step with the former Secretary of State. It turns out that if you move with the pack, you do enjoy relative safety even if your collective judgment is unsound. Usually, the people picking up the messy and blood-spattered pieces left behind by foolhardy policies are American soldiers and taxpayers whose opinions don't matter much in the rarefied atmosphere of Officialdom.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-as-Damaged-by-Robert-
Parry-Fbi-Director-James-Comey_Hillary-2016_Hillary-Clinton-Emails-And-Server_Israel-160706-486.html
If I didn't live in a swing state, I'd vote for Jill Stein. I'm forced to vote for Hillary because Trump is even worse.
If the Democratic Party were so worried about a Trump candidacy, they could make their party's problems disappear ... in a heartbeat.
How?
By nominating Sanders.
Millions would gladly, gratefully, willingly vote for Sanders over Trump.
So, you gotta wonder ... or at least I do ... what does the Democratic Party FORCE its constituency into voting for someone who has all of the positive attributes of slime? What is it about HILLARY that's so very precious to the DNC that they can't think beyond her candidacy?
So, why Hillary?
Why not Sanders?
Isn't he the more probable path to success?
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The primary was not a two way race. Lawrence Lessig, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley AND Bernie Sanders could not even get enough votes to win with Democrats, so how could any of them win a national election? Even a majority of Democrats didn't like any of them enough to vote for them, so why would Independents want to vote for them in the national election?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Why not Sanders?
Isn't he the more probable path to success?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2016#Candidates
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wow, you really DO have a man-crush on Putin!
Yanno, *I* certainly don't bring him up - at all. And yet, there you are, dragging him in to every single conversation that's about pretty much everything else. I'm sure if we were discussing how blue the sky is, you'd be bringing up ... Putin.
Do you think you could possibly NOT mention him for an entire thread, if the thread's not about Putin? Or are you too obsessed?Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ok some clarity is needed here. For all you who wish to criticize Clinton please feel free. I too have many, and I mean many reasons I am not happy with having to vote for her. Trump is out of the question. I would be remiss however, if I failed to remind all about the hypocrisy of SIG and 1kiki feigning disgust with Clinton, while defending everything Putin does. And let’s face the facts folks, check the threads, they defend everything Putin does without exception. It is literality impossible to be so dismayed by what Clinton does, yet not be even skeptical with what Putin does.
Raise your hand if you haven’t figured out why. I’ll give a hint. Think comrade trolls.
____________________________________________
Putin, Russia, is your hypocrisy meter. As I have said, It is literality impossible to be so dismayed by what Clinton does, yet not be even skeptical with what Putin does.
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
