FBI Investigating Hildabeast

Taping from the sideline was just a technicality. Don't taint the championships for that.

_

 

You claim to be this even handed cynic. But essentially all the time your posts take a pro right wing slant.

You are a faker.

 

First of all the mere fact she had a private server is not evidence of malfeasance or evil intent. The law does not require public officials to send ALL their emails, including personal ones, over servers controlled by the government.

I referred to this yesterday - do any of us send all of our emails over servers that our employers review and manage? Why not? And do we all here, and that extends to people who work for the government, have a legitimate right to privacy covering at least some of our emails? And doesn't anyone here recognize that some of our emails we would not want everyone in the world to read?

There is no dispositive evidence I am aware of that the mere use by Clinton of a private server was against the law.

 

Again, show me that your caveat there of MOST PROBABLY is no more than that. And she had a legitimate reason to protect her private emails. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

 

Faker.

 

You are not even a fraction as clever as you think you are being. Try another line, Mr. Cynic.

 

Well, I'll take a crack at this. Because, at the rate our government computer servers have been fisted by foreign hackers over the last 6 years, it was pretty much 50-50 whether or not important data would be more secure in a bathroom closet, guarded by a can of Aquanet and a tube of vagisil.

I hate how THAT issue hasn't been the subject of real outrage.


Don't get me wrong, though. Hillary is still a cunt.

Edit: Whups. That should read: filthy lying cunt. Fucking autocorrect.

 

Again, there is no evidence that the emails she had on her server were classified when she got them. That law does not say that you are violating the law if some government agency after the fact classifies something.

I don't profess to know the full extent of what actually happened. No one here does. But again I am troubled by the notion that a major candidate for president would have the campaign derailed by innuendo, false assumptions and all involving a subject matter that is irrelevant to one's qualifications for the office.

Now if we end up in some middle ground where her opponents prove their case of some technical violation of the law, then we can talk about lack of judgment and perhaps even legal exposure. But we are not there now, and the all too obvious hunger on the right for a takedown of Clinton because they fear her is, to me, not only obvious, but unmanly.

 

So, people with cunts are what? Should be disqualified from running for president?

What is the relevance of your observation?

 

Wow, your panties are in a bunch. What exactly makes me a faker? I'm on record as saying I am a moderate conservative and have expressed NO opinion about any of the GOP candidates. Not positive, not negative, none. No apologies, no praise, no criticism. Because it's just fluff to do so. If you think I'm a 'right winger' your reading comprehension needs brushing up.

I also haven't expressed any opinion about any Dem candidate other than I think Hillary is a smelly bitch.

The opinions I've expressed here are about her apologists' views and less about what she has done, may have done, may not have done, what she stands for or doesn't stand for.

And not trying to be clever, I just like pointing out how silly Hillary apologists sound and how similar they sound to Pats fans apologizing for the Patriots systematic cheating.

_

 

Or in a bathroom at Gillette Stadium being guarded by a Pats ball boy.

_

 

Sorry, BB. You're doing God's work here. Holding the line with the Jets fans voting bloc. I shouldn't be so casual and crass.

Everyone else, listen up: no one can prove she did anything wrong! Don't get squishy here! This is the cunt for us, and this is her time!

 

In case your were wondering, I do read and watch Fox News from time to time:

Spreading baseless venom about Hillary Clinton and her emails
By Juan Williams
·Published February 09, 2016
· FoxNews.com

Mainstream news shows have now joined conservative websites and magazines in roiling political waters with the suggestion that Hillary Clinton could be indicted. Such charges, the theory goes, would pertain to her sending secret government information over her personal email account while she was secretary of State.

Under questioning by ABC’s top political anchor in the days before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton dismissed the whole controversy as Republicans “grasping at straws.”

“This is very much like Benghazi, George,” Clinton told George Stephanopoulos. “The Republicans will continue to use it, beat up on me. I understand that. That’s the way they are.”

But the most respected news organizations in the nation — The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, as well as ABC and other television networks — all pursue the Clinton email story as legitimate news rather than as a political vendetta.

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, told me before Clinton’s narrow win in Iowa that the story is doing little political damage to Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Democrats, including Clinton’s fiery opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont, are dismissive of it.
But Podesta conceded the controversy is eating up time, forcing Clinton to go down the rabbit hole to discuss endless hints and allegations.

More broadly, many people beyond the campaign believe the furor contributes to the perception that Clinton is not honest.

So, too, does the far more concrete story about ties between Clinton’s work at the State Department and donors to her husband’s charity. But reporting on that issue pales in comparison with coverage of the emails.

The email story broke last March when the New York Times reported Clinton “used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State.” In July, the story escalated when the Times incorrectly reported that requests had been made for a criminal investigation of Clinton’s handling of email.

Even after a correction on that story, her totally legal use of a private server while at the State Department became an acceptable short-hand for political opponents — and reporters looking to appear tough — to condemn Clinton. Still, there was no evidence of law-breaking.

The attacks continue like a steady rain even though the Times reported in August that Clinton is “not a target of the investigation.” In September, the Justice Department put out a brief saying even when Clinton deleted personal emails without “agency supervision,” it was appropriate and legal.

A week ago Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, reiterated that “officials have said… she is not the target of the investigation.”

Later last week, NBC News reported that emails that had been retroactively declared classified had also been sent to the personal email account of former secretary of State Colin Powell and to key aides of his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

None of it quieted critics. They responded by suggesting a White House cover-up even as an October poll by Monmouth found 59 percent of Americans were “tired of hearing about Clinton’s emails.”

“She’s trying for the White House, but she’s probably more qualified for the Big House,” businesswoman Carly Fiorina said at a recent GOP debate.
“I find it hard to believe that they would be eager to nominate someone who is under indictment and could well face felony incarceration,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses, recently told radio host Hugh Hewitt.

What felony charge is that?

Republicans often point to charges against former Gen. David Petraeus for sharing classified information with a former girlfriend. But even in a case where the general handed military information to an outsider, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor. He never went to jail.

It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.

And of course there is still no evidence that she broke any law.

Legal analyst Dan Abrams recently reviewed the allegations and wrote on the LawNewz.com website that while Clinton was “foolish” to use a private server, “it is also indisputable that it was neither a crime nor even a violation of State Department procedure for Clinton to have used personal email for government business at that time.”

But nonpartisan assessments of the case have not stopped the drumbeat at every GOP primary event. A willingness to join in assumptions of Clinton’s guilt is a litmus test for anyone entering the conservative echo chamber on talk radio and the internet.

“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) recently told NewsmaxTV. DeLay added that if the FBI and Attorney General Loretta Lynch do not indict Clinton, there are FBI agents who plan on “going public…Either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins or we try her in the public eye with her campaign.”

That kind of innuendo-laden conjecture is widespread among Republicans and in some cases extends to suggestions of criminality by the White House.
“I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma [Abedin, a top Clinton aide] and Hillary as we speak,” Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.) told the Washington Examiner last week. He explained that the FBI director, James Comey, is being forced by the Obama Administration to “triple time make a case of what would otherwise be…a slam dunk.”

The use of rumors to weaken a political candidate has a long history. In 1999, GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan won repeated applause at rallies nationwide when he promised that his first act as president would be to turn to his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and say: “Sir, you have the right to remain silent.”

Base political attacks have been with us since the Founding Fathers. But in the era of social media and niche conservative outlets, the body politic seems to be entering a new era in which the tail wags the dog. The biggest newspapers and networks say they are just reporting the news while spreading baseless venom.

 

And I think you can go F yourself.

 

You have yet to post a single thing that refutes what I have said on the merits.

Figures. You have nothing but empty cynicism. You wallow in it, are proud of it. But the truth is, you ain't got shit.

 

Blocker is representing Hillary as best he knows how - acting like a woman on the rag.

 

You missed where I have not ruled out that she may in fact have done something significantly wrong. I never said no one can prove anything.

As for being casual and crass, that is your style. We have come to expect it. Don't disappoint us.

Look there's plenty I don't like about Hillary. Despite what some might think here I am not of the politically correct persuasion, and I am unhappy that Sanders seems to be drawing her to the left. The whole way she plays being a woman candidate for president is also troubling. And takin money from Goldman Sachs may not be the evidence of moral turpitude Sanders pretends it is, but it shows questionable judgment.

But I do think she is of the candidates running most qualified to be president. She is not a pacifist in foreign affairs, and likely would be a big improvement there over Obama. Meanwhile she has the most reasonable view of economic and tax policy of all the candidates.

That being the case, I think it would be a real shame if this stupid email shit meant someone else like Sanders, Cruz or Trump became president.