Hillary Clinton

Really?
I have not felt any evidence of that from any Hillary supporters here, but then I have not paid much attention to this thread all the time since the beginning, as I must have missed the wish trump was dead comments and the stomping on him like a pack of rabid dogs.

 

Your country is nuts

 

It feels good looking at it from here.

 

We acknowledge there is a sensible minority around, MeAgain. But yeah, it seems like they're thoroughly outnumbered.

 

That should be obvious. All of this violence, which has been attributed to "Trump's racist/sexist/islamophobic rhetoric" is actually the result of media lies about "Trump's racist/sexist/islamophobic rhetoric" as well as lies about police actions and shootings going back to Trayvon Martin. The one man who might have turned this around said little or nothing. When he did talk, it made things MUCH worse. His infamous "if I had a son" speech created damaging artificial solidarity.

Even with his justice department scouring every law book going back to to the Continental Congress and the Florida attorney general essentially promising to barbecue Zimmerman, the "white Hispanic" (a press-created term designed, successfully, to stir up a racial hornet's nest), a case could not be made against him. Like it or not, when a nearly 18 year old man-boy is pounding your head into the sidewalk, it's ok to defend yourself. Cue the outrage.

I'm always harping about how much better things were in the 70s with regard to racial relations. And they were. But we had something looming over our heads then that we don't have now; the constant threat of waking up whilst being vaporized by a Soviet nuke. A threat Americans of every race shared. For a short while after the wall came down, we had a strange kind of peace, just in time for the crack epidemic. Then we got Al Qaeda.

The current state of affairs, where a person feels entitled, even privileged to beat a guy wearing a Trump hat, is largely a product of the leftist press and the leftists who are financing the mobilization of hired rioters. They are unaware that it is they who have become the "Useful Idiots". Have you noticed that right wingers don't do this? They don't finance radical right wing groups, not even the Tea Party. Wealthy right wingers don't share. Which is probably why the KKK isn't a threat beyond telling scary stories to kids.

Personally, I'm fine with that. We don't need a left/right war in the US. The leftists will eventually realize they have lost this round and will slink away. Without financing the rioters will be forced to get real jobs and much of life will go back to semi-normal. Unfortunately for black folks, the die has been cast and their compatriots rioting in the streets will lead to the same kind of big chill they got in the late 60s and early 70s. Declaring war on the cops doesn't accomplish anything.

We saw all of this before.

 

Oh for sure . . .

In fact, there are many people who choose to remain ignorant despite being shown in no uncertain terms what the actual facts are. Is it cognitive dissonance, or is it simple denial? But is there really a difference between the two?

 

For example, the statute makes it clear that what she did concerning her emails was a violation of the trust that was put in her hands. It is also clear that she knew what she was doing when she did it--she received training. It is also clear that she put herself and her staff in charge of deciding which emails to turn over to the FBI. It is also clear that someone else guilty of the same crime was convicted. It is also clear that, despite these facts, otherwise intelligent people will look to authority to tell them not to believe the facts, which they are biased enough to do.

 

Mountainvalleywolf:

Their point was that Hillary Clinton did not make the best choices in this matter. But they also pointed out that at that time, what she did was not uncommon and other politicians chose to do it too, because of the technology at the time. And even while she sent and received e-mails in sensitive regions of the world, and that it was possible that enemies of the state could have hacked her e-mails, that no actual evidence has been uncovered that she willfully and intentionally broke the law.
_______________________________________________________________

I asked you a simple question. Did the television show's crack investigation team uncover those points I mentioned?

Didn't make the best of choices? She was guilty of gross negligence. You're putting lipstick on a pig. And your agument for doing so is that others have done the same as Clinton. Are you attempting to show a precedent that makes gross negligence an acceptable thing? And you also said that no evidence has been uncovered that she willfully and intentionally broke the law. It is good to hear you put her actions in the proper context--she broke the law. Even so, your belief that she didn't do it willfully is only valid if she did not receive training on how, and how not, to handle sensitive material. However, she did receive such training. So your contention that she didn't willfully break the law is without basis.

But it is good to hear you acknowledge that she did break the law.

 

To give a little context to everyone else---this was pulled from the Trump thread.

I mentioned that John Oliver did a very interesting report on the scandals surrounding Clinton, and that his staff had spent quite a long time investigating this, though I did not refer to them as a crack investigative team. Though it is a political satire cable network show----I am sure that they have access to all the computer files of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Interpol, KGB, MI6, and so forth. (I'm joking!)


To this first point---your simple question:

I told you that it had been 5 days since the show aired on last Sunday, and I couldn't remember the exact details, and then I invited you to watch it---I am sure you can find it on OnDemand, or on the show's website, or even on YouTube, so you can see for yourself---but I did answer to the best of my abilities and memory (not being a member of the show's cast, one of the show's writers, or the show's director).

Let's step back a moment---I did say that, and I do recall these were the words used in the explanation of the FBI as to why they wouldn't be pressing charges---which is why I used that phrase. It is not a statement of guilt. In a court of law, if this statement was used, it suggests the possibility that a crime may have been unintentionally committed---but it does not say that a crime was committed. If a prosecutor used this statement in a court the judge would ask if a crime was or was not committed. No one can be tried on such an indefinite statement of possible guilt or no guilt.

But the show may have made a much bigger statement that there was no clear evidence that she broke the law. I don't remember. I think they said that in all these cases there is no evidence that she actually broke the law. I have been in pain all week from stubbing my toes (possibly breaking my foot) so I have been taking vicodins all week, including when I responded, and right now. So like I said, you should watch the show and decide for yourself.

First of all, it is not my belief---I was simply using the words the FBI used, and which the show in question reflected, to make the point. This was the words used by an official of the FBI in what I believe was a press conference when they released their findings. I forget it was a video clip reported in the news.

Let’s just say for a moment that she unintentionally committed a crime. Under the law, willful criminal intent is a significant issue. Consider a drunk who enters a building and falls asleep in a warm hallway. He will get a ticket for misdemeanor trespassing. However if he entered the building to willfully commit a crime he will be charged with a felony---criminal trespassing. If you inadvertently drive over the speed limit, you can get a ticket for speeding. If a court is able to determine that you willfully drove over the speed limit with intent hit and kill someone---you are going to prison.

I do disagree with your issue of training as the sole condition to validate argument of willful intent. She is, after all, an attorney and could easily argue this in court where one is either proven to be guilty or not guilty. There is a technology issue, and while she is many things, I have never heard anyone claim that she is an IT or technology expert. Then there is the issue of others not following protocol with sensitive and confidential e-mails-----and the fact the people sent her sensitive e-mails that were not properly identified is one of the points brought up in the show. Then there is the issue that many were doing it---in other words, that, with the technology of the time, that appears to have been an accepted method of handling the limited ability of the government issued blackberries. The problem of willful criminal intent becomes much greater and more difficult to prove when it involves what is an accepted and common practice of dealing with the available technology. Remember, there was a time when the president and all members of government used dial up telephones hooked up to land lines, and two-way radios...

But let's look at this last point further:

In John Oliver's show, he provided an example of some of the other officials who were doing this---all very recognizable faces and names at the top of our government and military. There were both republicans and democrats. I don’t know if this was an acceptable practice, but there were apparently many key people doing it without repercussions or issues, so it appears that it was. There is no 'new' precedent regarding a common and acceptable practice, or something that is a condition of, 'that's how things were done.' This has been a defense, with plenty of precedent, going back at least as far as the beginnings of the US legal system.

Now if she committed such a serious crime, why should these others go unpunished for the same offenses? Oliver North, for example, did the same thing---shouldn't he be punished as well (even if Fox News loves him)??? Imagine the secrets he could have exposed in very sensitive and war torn areas.

In consideration that so many people were doing this because of the limitations of their blackberries, was it really gross negligence? We’ll come back to this gross negligence thing.

The right wing propaganda machine has done much to drag her name very deep into the mud, and her and her husband have sometimes helped them. But quite a few allegations, such as the one that she influenced the Watergate case as an intern in a law firm, have been discredited and disproved by snopes and others.

But you state very matter of fact that she was guilty of gross negligence here. Now Storch, I don’t know---maybe you are an FBI agent and were involved in the investigation, or you are part of the NSA and ‘listened in’ to all of the investigation. Since you obviously don’t put any credit in something reported on ‘some TV show’ you must not have heard it there. So please tell me, what is your basis of factually stating that she is guilty of gross negligence?

Now then, what if I am putting lipstick on a pig? Or as John Oliver demonstrated, giving you a cookie that looks like it has chocolate chips, but it really has raisins! So what? What is the alternative?!

I would rather vote for a pig with lipstick than a narcissistic pathological liar who is sexist, and preaches violence, isolationism, racism, xenophobia, and who idolizes dictators, panders to our enemies, and believes (like so many totalitarian dictators before him) that he is the only one who will bring justice and the end of crime to our nation and make it great again.

She may have used her own blackberry to send and receive e-mails in a sensitive region possibly allowing our enemies to hack a few confidential e-mails, and this is such a horrible treasonous crime we are told, while Trump has very many civil lawsuits pending against him, is subject to criminal investigations, and potential cases, has apparently broken laws repeatedly and it has been reported that he has even broken several campaign laws just this year, including seeking donations from foreign government officials. When Clinton accused him of not paying workers in Monday night’s debate, something that is well reported on, he didn’t deny it, he simply stated, maybe I didn’t like their work. That is an illegal practice. If you don’t like their work, you can write them up, take away their bonuses or other incentives, you can even fire them, but if you don’t pay them their wages, you are breaking labor laws.

I can factually speak of one case---a time when Trump defrauded several banks and investment banks in getting a mortgage. I can speak about this, not because Trump bragged about it in a book written about him in the 80’s, but because when I worked for Shearson Lehman I talked to some investment bankers that actually worked that deal and they showed me an agreement where it was to be resolved extrajudicially because there were some banks that really needed the money to stay afloat. What happened was that Trump needed a mortgage to build a building. At some point he couldn’t pay on the mortgage anymore so he let them foreclose on the building. It was then that Trump informed them that they can own the building but he is locking the gate, and if any banker tries to set foot on his property they will be arrested for trespassing. They didn’t know until then that the land itself was on a separate title. If anyone of us tried that, we would be going to jail for defrauding a financial institution. But like I said, the banks were more interested in getting what they could of their money rather than pressing criminal charges. They renegotiated and got money but at a loss.

I just can’t understand why he would ever, ever, be a better choice than Clinton---and I don’t think Clinton is any angel.


Anyway, Clinton’s blackberry must not have been too easy to hack, because the US still doesn’t know that she used it to send the plans of the embassy and wire the money to the forces that attacked the embassy in Benghazi! ;-)

(I’m joking!)

 

Right now the focus here is on Hillary Clinton.

Clinton was believed to have not willfully removed and grossly mishandle sensitive material. And of course we have her word that she wasn't aware that she was doing anything wrong. At any rate, it boils down to whether or not you are gullible enough to belief that our nation's most senior diplomatic official was ignorant concerning protocol when it came to what she was found to have done. Are you gullible enough to believe that the nation's senior diplomatic official did not know that she was being grossly negligent in the handling of sensitive material? Are you going to appeal to an authority that claims to know what was in Clinton's mind? That would be even more gullibility.

But let's assume for the moment that the absurd notion that the nation's senior diplomatic official was unaware that she was grossly negligent in the handling of sensitive material has some basis in reality. Is it really your opinion that such a grossly negligent person would be a swell president? Before answering, remember what FBI Director Comey said:

"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."

That is all a violation of the code of conduct. That is a fact.


Not only do you want her to be excused for her ignorance of protocol concerning sensitive material (which she should have been aware of), but you also want her to be the president of the United states.
_________________________________________________________________________

More from Comey:

"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." ​No doubt Comey was referring to the training Clinton received (see below).

"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."
_________________________________________________________________________

You are aware that she was trained in the handling of sensitive material, correct?

Under the heading “Safe Handling of Information” on page 21 the bureau boasted of its efforts to quickly bring new Obama administration appointees up to speed on security issues.

“DS contributed to the smooth transition of U.S. government officials by providing more than 180 members of the new Obama administration–ranging from Secretary Clinton to various ambassadors and other presidential appointees–with security training, and immediate access to highly classified systems and other information products critical to their new roles.

“In 2009, DS delivered information security educational briefings to nearly 6,000 State Department employees, contractors and personnel from other government agencies.”

This should clear up any misunderstandings concerning the question of her ignorance of proper security protocol.

Oh, and the legal definition for gross negligence is extremely careless.

 

Yes, I do know the legal definition of gross negligence. Unfortunately the Vicodins were kicking in a bit more---what I wanted to say was “gross negligence to the point of breaking the law.” But that is fine, it doesn’t make too much difference because either way the focus is on the word ‘gross.’

Then what you are saying is that Clinton along with many other government and military officials, many of whom, like Oliver North, were either the most senior or almost at the top of their departments, have been purposely trying to undermine the US Government and allow our secrets to fall into the hands of foreign Nationals and nefarious characters. This includes not only Clinton, but other presidential hopefuls.

It would be as if Trump had a special relationship with Putin through which Putin could potentially influence US politics… (Oh wait, scratch that last point…)

There is no doubt that there was negligence. And we all know that government officials are never negligent. I mean, that would be like the Pentagon being stupid enough to buy a $5.00 hammer for $40.00. That would be like a senator or congressman, who is well-paid by banks and other private or corporate organizations and wealthy families, sneaking laws into bills that benefit only that organization or family and is detrimental to everyone else, because he knows no one (all of whom we have elected into office to protect our mutual interests) is going to read all that stuff when they sign it into law. Government officials are just all knowing, and never act in self-interest, or simply do dumb or lazy things. …oh wait, that’s not true---they do all that stuff.

How could any of us know what was in her mind? But it does stand to reason that if she wants to one day become president (and we know that discussion has gone on an awful long time) that she is not going to willfully endanger the country and commit actual acts of treason because doing so would---I don’t know----make people not want to elect her as president?

Bureaucracies, as a rule, are inefficient, and end up doing many stupid and negligent things. That is Social Sciences 101. Are you familiar at all with the follies of the CIA? The many mistakes that they made throughout their history that endangered and even killed Americans and allowed for exposure of our nations secrets----they really are like a bunch of clowns trying to be spies. On the other hand, they have had successes too. What about the gross negligence, often willful, that happens all throughout our legislative branch---senators and representatives and their staff…?

There are parts of our government that still rely on technology from the 80’s and 90’s and lots of file cabinets and paper files. We can find negligence there based on proper protocols of security and the prevention of breaches of data. Many officials including Clinton made choices based on the technology that was provided. You are assuming that the training she, and every other official received, had addressed all these issues and provided enough IT training to allow them to understand the security implications of using a private server. Because if that is the case why did so many others choose to use private servers? This is especially so for Clinton who was using servers that had been installed specifically for her husband where one who is not considerably technologically sophisticated might assume that the servers would be harder to hack because they are limited in access and very private. An IT professional might know different, but I for one could easily make that assumption. Therefore:

No it doesn’t. In your line of work have you ever gone through training which was expected to make you knowledgeable enough on a subject to be expected to reasonably incorporate that into your job? If so you probably know how comprehensive that training is ‘not.’ My career was in the financial markets, and it was a heavily regulated industry with training regularly required by the SEC and NASD (in addition to the licensing training which is more thoroughly tested and comprehensive). We’d even get certifications after it was completed and everyone had enough knowledge that they should be ok as long as nothing unusual happens. But then when something does, out comes that same kind of statement---‘any reasonable person in his (her) position with the training provided should have known…” But that is the problem----the training is never comprehensive enough to cover every situation, and all aspects of the problem.

Have you spent any time in the military or in a government position, or even as a contractor? My dad was in the Air Force when I was a young kid, and then as an engineer his firm worked as a contractor for the government among others, and he even did some work on the Nevada test grounds. He saved every training manual he ever got in those positions. I grew up looking at those things, along with his ROTC book which was pretty cool. I think his ROTC manual was far more comprehensive than many of those training manuals that covered a far more limited and specific subject.

You bring up another problem from Comey’s statement:

If that’s the case, and it was highly inappropriate and illegal, or even just grossly negligent, why wasn’t action taken then to stop it? We already know that it wasn’t only Clinton that had the training. And we are told that a reasonable person in her position, and obviously the position of others who knew, and with whom she corresponded with, should know what is appropriate in this manner. In fact, since it wasn’t just her, there were many people doing this, it should have been an easy problem to spot and rectify. This gets back to the problem of common and acceptable practices, which legally calls into question the legal issue of just what level of negligence in this matter is actually ‘gross’ negligence. It is, after all, somewhat subjective, and it is very clearly related to the context of common and acceptable practices. We cannot now claim, for example, that a government official who communicated over radio frequencies in a war zone back in the 70’s, that requires fairly simple technologies to ‘hack’ per se’, would be guilty of gross negligence, even if following protocols, which compared to today, were not secure enough.

And this brings into the question:

If it was a common practice, then how do we know this is a violation of the code of conduct, or even the code of conduct back then? Do you have a copy of the Code of Conduct from that time?

In the end, none of what Comey said, really contradicts anything I posted.

This is why I have stayed out of the Clinton thread until now----because I would have loved for Bernie Sanders to be in her place right now. There are a lot of people I would rather see as the hopeful president opposing far right ideology, hatred, racism, sexism, etc., but we don’t have anyone else.

But your notion that it was ‘gross’ negligence, and that it is absurd to think that she did not know she was doing anything wrong, is based on the assumption that the training was sufficiently comprehensive, that the level of technology was effectively sufficient, and that it was not a common and acceptable practice. Furthermore, in determining such matters, we would have to apply the standards and code of that time, not that of today.

If everything you say is right, then we need to go after, not just her, but a good sized portion of the government. They all need to be sanctioned and/or punished.

On the other hand---why is this such a big election issue in the face of all the illegal things, unethical acts, and improprieties that Trump has committed in his personal, public, and business life. Here you are saying that she should not be president because she used her own private e-mail server and may have leaked confidential information to our adversaries-----when Trump has already committed too much negligence for me to take the time to list------just since the election began! (And I am not even talking about his racist or sexist comments, which may be ignorant but are not negligent.)

Yes, I would much prefer Clinton as a president despite her gross negligence in this matter, even if she is no more competent, and commits the same negligence of just about any other idiot in Washington, because she does not preach hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia; she does not praise the governing style of dictators and claims she will be the president of law and order and already proposes a National Stop & Frisk policy; She does not appear to be closely tied to a totalitarian figure who is just as crazy, and is recognized as a potential enemy (Putin); and she does not sound like every previous dictator when he wanted to make his nation great again. This is not a matter of gullibility, but it is a matter of what we are stuck with as a viable choice----and it is still too risky to vote for a 3rd Party candidate.

Already in America Police violence against unarmed and innocent citizens has become a big problem. The 1% has far too much influence in both the public and private sectors. The whole world has shifted alarmingly to the Right. I do not want to be innocently walking down the street in a few years, to be stopped by some kind of police figure demanding to see my papers!

 

Is there anything to all this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os5fe-ADtZA

 

I hope no one forgets what juvenile asses the Clintons acted like when they left the White House!


THE WHITE HOUSE Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02360.pdf


When considering how the office of the presidency is regarded by the Clintons, a new generation of voters may not even know about Team Clinton:
♦ writing vulgar messages on the White House office walls,
♦ destroying furniture,
♦ slicing chair cushions,
♦ ripping phones out of walls,
♦ removing the historical door knobs,
♦ cutting all the electronic cabling
♦ stealing items (lots of stuff),
♦ switching around the fax machines and location addressed telephones,
♦ gluing desk drawers closed,
♦ carving into desk tops ♦ removing the “w” key from all the computer keyboards,
♦ spray painting the walls, and much worse.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/04/how-ugly-will-this-get-many-2016-voters-dont-know-about-team-clinton-destroying-white-house/

 

You just made up the idea that gross negligence must be to the point of breaking the law. Gross negligence is the point of breaking the law.
________________________________________________________________
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.
____________________________________________________________
Now why don't you point out to me the segment of this U.S. Code that indicates the point at which gross negligence is a violation of that law. Don't bother. It only exists in the minds of people who want to excuse Clinton for her gross negligence. Gross negligence is the crime.

And where did you gather that I am saying that Clinton purposefully wanted our secrets to fall into the hands of bad guys? I've been very clear that she is guilty of gross negligence, not treason.

MVW: "But your notion that it was ‘gross’ negligence, and that it is absurd to think that she did not know she was doing anything wrong, is based on the assumption that the training was sufficiently comprehensive, that the level of technology was effectively sufficient . . ."

The training was sufficiently comprehensive. Wouldn't it be great if when you're found to be in violation of the trust of your position, you could just claim that the training must not have been comprehensive enough? And wouldn't it be great if, when it is proven that the document you signed shows that you've received security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom you contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that you understand these procedures, you can still simply claim that you were unaware of your duties concerning the handling of sensitive material?

And yes, she received training in the handling of sensitive and classified material. Your counter to this information is that "training don't mean shit." You must understand how lame that sounds, right? Right. She signed a document stating that she understands what her responsibilities are regarding the handling of sensitive and classified material. You must know that, right?


The rest of your post is your idea of campaigning for Clinton. Sorry, but not interested.

 

I read that Assange would make his announcement but that it would not be live from his balcony.

 

When Assange makes his announcement (or if he's still alive to do it), brace yourselves for an orchistrated false flag terror arrack.