Hillary Clinton

as oppose to Trump people who are utterly mad...

 

OMG with the email thing

No one cares!!!!

 

I know that in 2007 there was the George Bush/Karl Rove debacle that had MILLIONS of emails "lost", and nobody was OR IS concerned in the least.

Now here is Hillary with 3 (THREE!) classified emails out of the 30K they combed so carefully through and then it was decided that those THREE weren't a threat to national security.

But WAIT - lets all cry and moan and whine about those 3 emails of Hillary's... because MILLIONS of lost emails are ok when its a pile of Republicans and the freakin' POTUS that "lost" them. smh

I am not saying Hillary is right about everything. I AM saying basically what VG said ... enough already with those dingdang emails.

I do disagree that voting the 3rd party is going to show anybody anything.

People can like it or not...but if you actually want your vote to count, you need to cast it for HRC or that other atrocity. Perhaps in years to come some of you brilliant minds can come up with a way/s to change this; but, the reality is that voting for the lesser of 2 evils is the way it is now.

We don't have to like it. I do think it is necessary to realize that is reality.

 

Sure, let's elect a president who's probably about to pop her clogs and is evidently fucking nuts and can't be trusted with important issues such as, oh let me see... oh yeah national security and things like that.

Hillary is the perfect choice because she has a vagina

No president in the history of America has ever had a vagina

America should elect a president with a vagina

It's time America had a president with a vagina

Vaginas takes precedence over national security

Vaginas

 

Well, as long as the situation is like this it suits everyone who does vote for one of the big 2 parties that a lot of the rest doesn't vote at all. So not voting is even worse.

Imagine if everyone who didn't really want either of the 2 candidates that have a chance now would vote third party. That would make an extraordinary statement. But no, people seem to think it is just as good to not spend any time on this at all because nothing matters and nothing will change. And that while there are so many people voting reluctantly for either one of these turds that it could make a change doing something out of the ordinary. Not voting or voting against the worst option by going for the other turd is exactly what is keeping everything the same. No one has to listen to those few votes on a third party because they will always be a tiny amount.... because of american voters themselves. But a third party doesn't have to get a majority to get noticed or make an impact. Lets start with a big(ger) minority.

 

If you want your vote to count, move to a swing state.

Voting democrat counts just as much as voting third party where we are Lynn. This state will always be red. So why bother at all?

 

Now you're appealing to money, time, and number of investigators. You're right, you don't understand my question though it is clear what I was asking.

Comey said: "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," and then added, "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."

You take him at his word, right? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

https://.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q

Hillary's not bad at deadpan humor though

Edit: damn i am on my mobile so it wont work

Youtube hillary clinton between two ferns, you guys. Funny stuff

 

I know you're right, Meliai. For whatever ungodly reason, SC is a red state and probably always will be. Personally I think the people around here (that I know) have this idea that Trump will make SURE they get money (because they are special???) and because they are as deeply prejudiced and bigoted as Trump seems to be.

That being said, I just cannot make myself vote red nor can I let myself just not vote at all.

I agree with everything you said earlier (in your longer post) and yet the realist part of me knows that to vote 3rd party right now, in this year, is a waste no matter what state you reside...in fact, I see it as an absolute waste.

I don't know the answer, but I think seeing things in realistic way is important.

_________________________________________________



Moving to another state or to another country is out of the question (for me), and to tell the truth I find it odd every time I've ever read that from anybody...even when it isn't aimed at me.

 

Oh i dont think you should move, SC needs good people like you lol.

I just dont follow the logic that your vote only counts if you vote red or blue, when your vote is going to be drowned out by the majority anyways unless you're in a swing state.

I've always enjoyed the freedom of voting third party because a blue vote doesnt count here

 

I love Zack Galifianakis, but I honestly did not find the Hillary episode funny at all. I didn't laugh once.

 

I really do admire your thinking...and I wasn't being sarcastic when I said that about your generation (of brilliant minds) fixing this SHIT. My son is in your age group. He is 32 (will be 33 in November) and I'm sure he will vote 3rd party. He is also super put out with HRC, and he has consistently maintained being upset about those THREE emails.

There are those that think the US (and the world) is going to go to hell when us oldsters have to give up the reins to your generation. I look forward to it. Those before us, and now us, in particular, haven't done such a great job at fixing things.

I will add one last thing in that I am an Obama fan, and I don't think we've ever had a better 1st lady than Michele. Obamacare hasn't been what many hoped, I can see. However, in our grand state (sarcasm) our governor voted NOT to accept it, so I can't help but wonder what it would have been like if our state had accepted that, as well as the medicare extensions...which would have made me eligible for medicare.

As it stands, I do now have a health care plan (bought) but the deductible is 10K and it would only be of use if I were to be hospitalized. The sole only reason I got it is because I was/am determined not to lose everything that is in my name legally because of a 4 day hospital stay. NOT that I'm thinking I'll have to be hospitalized; but, I am a klutz and being a realist I know I just might fall, break a bone (or something) and have to be hospitalized.

That's off the subject..I just want to say in all sincerity I look forward to the governmental reins being handed over to the next generation, to your generation.

 

Comey said: "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," and then added, "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."

He said no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Actually that statement is not valid. Either he lied, or he is unaware of a case from a year ago in which the FBI charged Bryan Nishimura, a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan with unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. And he did so without malicious intent. That's what Hillary did.

This is from Section 793 of the U.S. Code:

(f) 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—

And here is what Comey said about Hillary Clinton's actions:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."

"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
__________________________________________________________________________________

Hillary Clinton was grossly negligent. What does the statute say about that?

 

Comey admits that Clinton was negligent, and that she should have known. This puts her in the same boat as Nishimura; he should have known, and did. Your argument against that is that Clinton says she didn't know. When did ignorance of the law become a defense against prosecution? And anyway, the statute is clear on that issue.

And you must have missed the part where Comey says that participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." This certainly speaks to Clinton's negligence. Again, the statute is clear on that.

Your thoughts?

 

From Reuters:

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."