E-mail server thing looks bad for Hillary

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah it did.
From the article:
"We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do," Comey said. "That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information."

One by one, Comey rebutted a litany of GOP charges including that the FBI had been biased, ignored the law, applied it unjustly or coordinated the decision with Clinton's campaign. "We try very hard to apply the same standard whether you are rich or poor, white or black, old or young, famous or not known at all," he said.

To criminally charge Clinton based on the facts his agency's yearlong probe had found would have been unwarranted and mere "celebrity hunting," Comey told a congressional investigative committee Thursday.

Comey said investigators found no evidence that Clinton or her aides intended to break the law, even though they mishandled classified information. A misdemeanor statute requires the mishandling to be intentional, Comey said. A law that permits felony prosecution due to gross negligence has been used only once in the 99 years since it was enacted — and that was in a case involving espionage.

Yeah, all that above, contradicts your claims.

Why is is weird that Hillary would get more money from international donors when she spent years acting as a foreign diplomat representing the United States? I would say that could easily be seen as evidence that she was well liked and respected in her position.

I'm not being a shill for calling you out on your crap. I don't turn every post into a campaign ad. So no I'm not a shill for Hillary. Now show me some real evidence or stop being a troll.

So how do you rectify that with her ordering her aids to send classified documents without their headers unsecurely?



Certainly looks like intent there.

I think this statement is a good indication that your sentiments against Hillary Clinton are based on emotions rather than logic. The reason is, as a result of human nature, most people have some redeemable qualities, even horrible dictators[/b], and if one's measure of a person is rooted in logic rather than emotion, these qualities do not remain invisible.

Here are some examples:
Pol Pot: He was kind to animals.
Adolf Hitler (I'm a jew, by the way): He rejuvenated the Autobahn project.
Saddam Hussein: He stabilized and modernized Iraq. (Believe it or not, most support for him came from the fact that local people knew that his removal would destabilize the region due to existing ethnic tensions. Not because they thought he was a great guy).
Most Mexican drug cartel bosses: They fund a lot of charities.

Of course these individuals also have negative qualities. But the ability to make logical conclusions concerning their character comes from the ability to weigh the good vs. bad, not ignore the good, and focus only on the bad. It is not that good qualities can necessarily negate bad qualities. Saving millions of innocent people doesn't negate having slaughtered millions of innocent people. It's a matter of the capacity to consider all variables and form a cohesive picture to arrive at a fitting judgement, so we do not arrive at conclusions on false pretenses.

I find many of Donald Trumps actions and words counter to my moral and ethical standards. However that does not stop me from being able see his positive attributes. For example, he has very obviously created jobs.

Now for Hillary Clinton. Before she entered the realm of politics, she dedicated much of her time to the advocacy of children's rights. You are welcome to look this fact about her up if you wish.




I may be. As I said, it was merely my understanding that the information had not yet been classified. However I will certainly refer to the source you suggested.

Well Comey didn't see it. I trust him more than you when it comes to the law. Again show me real evidence not conjecture.

Cronos,

He used to be just a regular libertarian type poster but over the last few months he became nothing more than a troll constantly praising Trump as often as he can.

I won't begrudge him his enthusiasm.

The problem here is, we don't know what, exactly, she was referring to.

It's like someone overhearing a conversation in which person A tells person B to "Blow it up". Are they talking about blowing up a building or enlarging a photo or something entirely different?

Maybe she was sending something sensitive, maybe she wasn't. The problem is, from snippet, we can't make a determination. If you presented that as evidence in court, the court would find it insufficient.

Oh lets think, everything that comes to mind would be more backhanded than anything. Even anecdotally it's hard, I guess she is cunning in a way and made the right decision on who to marry.

It's not what I'm doing with Trump. My specific reasons for disliking Donald Trump developed long before he was involved in politics, and in fact at a time in his life when politics was not even on the horizon. The first issue which arose which put me off to Donald Trump was his refusal to properly compensate those who did contracting work for him. I found this particularly reprehensible because, due to his wealth, a few thousand dollars will not put him out of house, home, or business, when to small business contractor, not getting paid that few thousand dollars can completely put that person out of business or cause them to end up on the streets.

I was put off to him more when he attempted to have Atlantic City take an old lady's home. Those are major factors for me because they are both instances of a very powerful person abusing their power in a way that intimately affects someone who is at a disproportionate disadvantage.

This behavior is not acceptable to me in a leader.

I was a Ron Paul supporter, never a Big L Reason/Cato Libertarian. I've explained my reasonings, my views have evolved but are still largely the same when it comes to opposing recklessly going to war, these awful trade agreements, opposition to neoconservatives, and social moderation. World events have happened, I do think at this point we have to fight IS despite the fact it is a monster of our own creation and I think the only way to do that is to stop our pointless propaganda war and sabre-rattling against Vladimir Putin. What he says about NATO and globalism is music to my ears! These were all positions I arrived at or was trending towards before Trump entered the race more than a year ago. Trump is the first viable candidate with views in a very long time now, it's easy to forgive the warts considering the alternatives.

People didn't have a problem with me bashing Hillary until Bernie was a sure loser, now it's a problem? You have to also understand that there have been dozens and dozens of threads about whatever BS someone was trying to drum up that they thought would surely sink him, it is a never ending game of wack-a-mole. I've honestly created very few threads, I am responding to someone more than 90% of the time. Perhaps if you've seen a change in my posting it is because I am being rundown from all directions with the most awful things said, not too many people like to discuss policy.

In that case, I don't understand why a libertarian would support someone who has attempted to use imminent domain, as that is the process by which the government seizes someone's property, by force, if necessary, and gives it to someone else, and my understanding of what the pinnacle of libertarian principals is, is the concept of inherent rights of property owners to their properties.

Speaking of Hillary and Bernie, new WikiLeaks documents show the DNC extensively sabotaging Bernie's campaign. Heavy coverage on Twitter under #DNCleaks:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/dncleaks?ve ... s&src=hash

Among other things, they were looking for ways to use Bernie's Jewish background against him.

(They also were doing thinks like creating fake ads on Craigslist to try to make Trump look bad.)

Added note: These were not things being done by the Hillary campaign. These were actions of the Democratic National Committee, which is supposed to oversee a fair primary system that lets all party candidates compete freely against each other. It's clear, as Bernie claimed, that the whole system was rigged against him, not by Hillary, but by the party leadership.

None of these other candidates oppose eminent domain, who am I suppose to vote for? Rand Paul never got off the ground and was a much watered down and impotent version of his father, he dropped out of the race. Ted Cruz is a treacherous creep, there is a reason why everyone who ever has come in contact with this guy hates his guts. Ben Carson while a good man is much too religious and not a strong candidate, he dropped out. Gary Johnson has done nothing but piss everyone off since 2012, he is no way a principled libertarian in any sense. I hear Jeb Bush is thinking about endorsing him, if that isn't a kiss of death I don't know what is.

Trump is the closest with the issues I find most important and eminent domain isn't near the top of the list. Everyone supports the Keystone Pipeline XL but that inherently involves eminent domain. Infrastructure spending is something that is much too rigid with many libertarians, Donald Trump if anything is a builder.

I find people's view negative views of Hillary Clinton to be based more on public perception, conspiracy rumors, and paranoia rather than much that is factual, and this is a concern to me because their decisions then become based on false realities. I would defend Donald Trump against much of the same. My war is on fallacies, not any one political candidate, but I do not read this forum often.

"Eminent". Thank you. I thought it was spelled that way, however my spell checker kept disagreeing.

I don't have a problem with your support for Donald Trump. I simply object to mischaracterization, and defamation of character, and I believe Hillary Clinton has become one of the biggest victims of this.

If people want to defend Hillary on policy then it is a discussion we can have but it's not one any of her supporters want to have especially when it comes to foreign policy and her time as Secretary of State or as a US Senator. You tend to focus on the worst aspects of a candidate so her incompetence might get overshadowed by her corruption, criminality, and total lack of ethics. You fight fire with fire, simple as that.

Would you like to talk about Hillary's foreign policy? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Hillary has contributed a great deal to the rise of ISIS thru her support of the Iraq War, the destabilizing intervention into Libya, and our disastrous policy in Syria. Her sabrerattling against Russia is something I totally oppose and rapprochement with Russia is central to what I believe needs to be done which is a position that Trump is actually attacked for from these people.