Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't recall him ever stating that. Are you sure you remember it correctly or do you have a link? I do, however, recall him saying this:

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...None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

While I cannot find any report of him saying they were copies of the stull already reviewed, this was also said.: After reviewing the messages the FBI found no reason to charge Clinton or revise its earlier finding that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified material in emails.

And also this.: The FBI has previously said that a number of Abedin's documents were backed up on Weiner's laptop, and that some smaller number were manually forwarded. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last May, the FBI said, "Although we do not know the exact numbers, based on its investigation, the FBI believes it is reasonable to conclude that most of the emails found on Mr. Weiner's laptop computer related to the Clinton investigation occurred as a result of a backup of personal electronic devices, with a small number a result of manual forwarding by Ms. Abedin to Mr. Weiner."

Yes, the FBI found several of the deleted emails on the computers of the recipients as with the Weiner laptop. Yes, OJ was found innocent and, according to Comey, there was insufficient evidence to charge and convict Hillary of a crime. She's obviously smarter than Trump.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Meh, I interpreted the e-mail debacle just as somebody not being technologically savvy. Just setting up some stuff on her own because she could and it was practical. And then not separating work e-mails that was public property, and her own, which weren't. Since she didn't want the world to know all about her private stuff, she deleted them. Worth noting is that if she wanted to keep secrets there's tonnes of services she could have used. People who do nefarious stuff would use them. So the fact that she didn't is a point in her favour.

I think it's an age thing. Her generation aren't great at this Internets thing. Trying to nail her for it is hysterical.

On her corruption. She hasn't actually done anything illegal regarding that. Bill Clinton figured out a way to get rich, using his presidential name. There's nothing illegal about it. Somebody in some country sets up a dinner where various people with money come and other people who need money for investments. The Clintons are paid as speakers. The trick to it is that those invited are vetted. It's expensive to even get invited. The people who go there know that they're not wasting their time, because everybody there are people they want to be in business with.

It's all above board.

Hillary didn't come up with the idea of "plausible deniability" but she certainly exploited it. Let's not forget that she helped write the destruction-of-evidence laws after Nixon's demise. If someone wants to claim that Hillary did what she did because she was just a silly, clueless woman, that's their choice, but I don't buy it. She is easily smarter than Bill and much smarter than Donnie.

That doesn't change the fact that if she wanted to say something nefarious in secret she'd easily been able to use a tool to allow it. If she wrote something damning in her e-mails, then she was foolish. That's just a fact. I think it's undeniable that she just was a silly clueless... old person.. who have trouble grasping this Internets thing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

HRC was very principled in the beginning. When Bill Clinton first won office, she was one of the most forward advancing and aggressive first women in our history. And the press and people hated her for it. She repeatedly stuck her neck out (universal health care and many others) and she was hammered. She was probably one of the most divisive Washington people in history. Two years after Bill won, the democrats lost the house to Newt - mostly because the Clintons and HRC in particular were overreaching. Several years later, she learned her lesson, became a politician, then won a senate rate. I try to give her a break for what happened. She was treated very unfairly in the beginning.

I agree with the bolded. Thing is, she then became part of that machine of corruption, and then came to lead one side of it, going into the 2016 election. She wasn't the same person in 2016 as she was when she was first lady. Washington corrupted her to her core and she is now symbolic of self-entitlement, pay for play politics and "no, we can't". It really is a tragedy what happened to her.

- - - Updated - - -

Even a cursory look at what happened in 2016 should dispel the notion that DJT and HRC are "equivalent" scumbags.
The mere fact that within his own party there was a "never Trump" faction that flipped into full-bore endorsement of Agent Orange and his Nazi-sympathizing ideology, should be a tipoff. There were a lot of Democratic voters who were not happy with HRC's coronation a nominee, but there wasn't a "never Hillary" faction within the party.

Yes there was. They called themselves "Bernie or bust".

 

[Harry Bosch]

In the meantime, he continues to avoid apology for a personal attack instead of simply seeking to discuss the issue. Just like you. Both of you know what Comey testified to about Hillary. Both of you know classified material was found in her deleted emails on Weiner's laptop. Both of you are engaging in personal attacks rather than admitting the fact she lied and destroyed evidence.

Huh? Comey plainly stated that the stuff on Wieners computer was the same as the stuff already in possession.

I don't recall him ever stating that. Are you sure you remember it correctly or do you have a link? I do, however, recall him saying this:

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...None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Yea, it's a crime if the user knowingly mishandles classified information. Have you ever wondered why HRC is so heavily condemned for her e-mails when the republicans do the same thing? It's because the republicans have congress, while we have nothing...

 

[Harry Bosch]

HRC was very principled in the beginning. When Bill Clinton first won office, she was one of the most forward advancing and aggressive first women in our history. And the press and people hated her for it. She repeatedly stuck her neck out (universal health care and many others) and she was hammered. She was probably one of the most divisive Washington people in history. Two years after Bill won, the democrats lost the house to Newt - mostly because the Clintons and HRC in particular were overreaching. Several years later, she learned her lesson, became a politician, then won a senate rate. I try to give her a break for what happened. She was treated very unfairly in the beginning.

I agree with the bolded. Thing is, she then became part of that machine of corruption, and then came to lead one side of it, going into the 2016 election. She wasn't the same person in 2016 as she was when she was first lady. Washington corrupted her to her core and she is now symbolic of self-entitlement, pay for play politics and "no, we can't". It really is a tragedy what happened to her.

Could you give me some examples of how HRC practiced pay for play and no we can't politices? Are you hinting at the Clinton library?? This has been pretty thoroughly debunked as well...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

HRC was very principled in the beginning. When Bill Clinton first won office, she was one of the most forward advancing and aggressive first women in our history. And the press and people hated her for it. She repeatedly stuck her neck out (universal health care and many others) and she was hammered. She was probably one of the most divisive Washington people in history. Two years after Bill won, the democrats lost the house to Newt - mostly because the Clintons and HRC in particular were overreaching. Several years later, she learned her lesson, became a politician, then won a senate rate. I try to give her a break for what happened. She was treated very unfairly in the beginning.

I agree with the bolded. Thing is, she then became part of that machine of corruption, and then came to lead one side of it, going into the 2016 election. She wasn't the same person in 2016 as she was when she was first lady. Washington corrupted her to her core and she is now symbolic of self-entitlement, pay for play politics and "no, we can't". It really is a tragedy what happened to her.

Could you give me some examples of how HRC practiced pay for play and no we can't politices? Are you hinting at the Clinton library?? This has been pretty thoroughly debunked as well...

It was visible, front and centre, in her 2016 campaign where she stupidly played directly into it, even though her people must have known she was known for it. 'No, Bernie, we can't"; "I'm with HER" (not she's with us). There was a "coronation" expected for her, the one who gave expensive speeches to wall street, and who worked hand in hand with Debbie Shultz, the payday loan lady.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't recall him ever stating that. Are you sure you remember it correctly or do you have a link? I do, however, recall him saying this:

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...None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Yea, it's a crime if the user knowingly mishandles classified information. Have you ever wondered why HRC is so heavily condemned for her e-mails when the republicans do the same thing? It's because the republicans have congress, while we have nothing...

Comey soft-pedaled it, but he did mention she should have known better. Are you really going to play the "she was stupid and incompetent" card to protect "HRC"?

The difference you are avoiding is that Hillary exclusively used her private server while others, D's and R's alike, used government systems for classified work but also had private emails.

Have you ever considered that since she only used a private server and claims she never used it for classified material, then her ambassadors had no way to directly send her classified information such as local threat issues?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Meh, I interpreted the e-mail debacle just as somebody not being technologically savvy. Just setting up some stuff on her own because she could and it was practical. And then not separating work e-mails that was public property, and her own, which weren't. Since she didn't want the world to know all about her private stuff, she deleted them. Worth noting is that if she wanted to keep secrets there's tonnes of services she could have used. People who do nefarious stuff would use them. So the fact that she didn't is a point in her favour.

I think it's an age thing. Her generation aren't great at this Internets thing. Trying to nail her for it is hysterical.

On her corruption. She hasn't actually done anything illegal regarding that. Bill Clinton figured out a way to get rich, using his presidential name. There's nothing illegal about it. Somebody in some country sets up a dinner where various people with money come and other people who need money for investments. The Clintons are paid as speakers. The trick to it is that those invited are vetted. It's expensive to even get invited. The people who go there know that they're not wasting their time, because everybody there are people they want to be in business with.

It's all above board.

Hillary didn't come up with the idea of "plausible deniability" but she certainly exploited it. Let's not forget that she helped write the destruction-of-evidence laws after Nixon's demise. If someone wants to claim that Hillary did what she did because she was just a silly, clueless woman, that's their choice, but I don't buy it. She is easily smarter than Bill and much smarter than Donnie.

That doesn't change the fact that if she wanted to say something nefarious in secret she'd easily been able to use a tool to allow it. If she wrote something damning in her e-mails, then she was foolish. That's just a fact. I think it's undeniable that she just was a silly clueless... old person.. who have trouble grasping this Internets thing.

Scroll up; she exclusively used her private system and never even set up her government system when she became SoS. Disagreed she was silly, clueless or even incompetent. She is very smart, much smarter than the assclown currently in the WH. The problem is that when that smartness is coupled with a power-hungry, cronyistic and corrupt person, they become dangerous to We, the People regardless of party affiliation. Trump is an "R" in name only and regularly shoots himself in the foot...then inserts it in his mouth. He's not a threat, just a fool.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Could you give me some examples of how HRC practiced pay for play and no we can't politices? Are you hinting at the Clinton library?? This has been pretty thoroughly debunked as well...

It was visible, front and centre, in her 2016 campaign

So that's a no, you can't give any examples of how she was paid for her vote while serving in office.

'No, Bernie, we can't"; "I'm with HER"

Neither of which were official campaign slogans. Her campaign's official slogan was "Stronger Together." "I'm with Her" was a bumper sticker slogan during the primaries that went viral all on its own and was extremely popular (remains so to this day). It also makes perfect sense, because the question in the primaries was, who are you with, Sanders or Clinton? Well, I'm with her. Simple and extremely effective.

Misogynists hated it, of course, but then they just hate women no matter what the slogan.

the one who gave expensive speeches to wall street

Ahh, the old moron's chestnut. How dare someone be paid for speaking. That's never before happened in all of human history! To be paid for a service provided? Blasphemy.

So, in short, you've presented nothing of substance. Not your fault, of course. None of these chestnuts ever had anything substantive behind them. And she still won, so it's all moot anyway.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

she exclusively used her private system and never even set up her government system when she became SoS.

Aside from the fact that she tried and was denied, this is an utterly irrelevant point. At the time she was in office, there was no requirement for her to use a government server--as evdienced by the fact that she even asked Powell what he did and he famously told her he didn't use government servers and considered the risk "nonsense"--nor are government servers magically secure.

Disagreed she was silly, clueless or even incompetent.

She wasn't. She just wasn't tech savvy. Here is a complete history of it all that I'm sure you won't read: What the FBI Files Reveal About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server.

The problem is that when that smartness is coupled with a power-hungry, cronyistic and corrupt person

I'm sorry, where exactly have you evidenced any corruption?

He's not a threat

Demonstrably false.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How dare someone be paid for speaking. That's never before happened in all of human history! To be paid for a service provided? Blasphemy.

Right. Paid for a service. Because she spoke so elequently and had such unique and valuable insights they were confident would enhance their bottom line by far more than they were paying for these speeches. No, she wasn't beholden to them at all. That's why they supported her so much.

Remember when Bernie was going on and on about getting money out of politics, and Hillary's repeated response was "Yes. Get dark money out of politics"? Hurray for her call for transparency, but she clearly needs that money flowing, as all bought politicians do. She raised more money in her campaign from rich donors than even Trump did. That was also payment for service. Trump exposed her very well by simply stating that he had been on of them. That she was bought and he was not sold well for him. And she was such a bad politician that she let that stick. Had she been more able, like Obama, or like her husband in his prime, she could have knocked him right back by making it stick that he is beholden to nobody, not even America itself, and only to his own ego.

And she still won, so it's all moot anyway.

If you repeat that enough, do you think it will come true? She lost a historic election in one of the biggest political upsets in my lifetime and Donald Trump became President of the United States. But to you, its a win.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Aside from the fact that she tried and was denied, this is an utterly irrelevant point. At the time she was in office, there was no requirement for her to use a government server--as evdienced by the fact that she even asked Powell what he did and he famously told her he didn't use government servers and considered the risk "nonsense"--nor are government servers magically secure...

Thanks for the links but:
1) Failing to be given a secure cellphone is not an excuse to violate classified material handling. She still had government computers. From your link:"Mills also asked about waivers provided during the Bush administration to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her staff to use BlackBerrys in their secure offices. But the NSA had phased out such waivers due to security concerns."

2) Just because Powell violated the rules isn't an excuse for anyone to do likewise. If he violated classified material handling, then he should be charged just like Petraeus and Snowden. That said, as your link states: "She was the only one to set up a private email server in her home, however, and has admitted this was a mistake." She admits she screwed up.

3) If even secure government systems have been hacked, smart people realize that Hillary's unsecure system would be a cakewalk for the Chinese.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How dare someone be paid for speaking. That's never before happened in all of human history! To be paid for a service provided? Blasphemy.

Right. Paid for a service.

Right. Cue argument from incredulity...

Because she spoke so elequently

She does, actually, but of course that's a purely subjective matter and irrelevant to the fact that she was paid to speak.

No, she wasn't beholden to them at all.

No, she wasn't. Any more than Barrack Obama was. You remember him, right? Goldman Sachs was one of his largest campaign donors in 2008, but then he trash talked him so they went with Romney in 2012. How did that work out for them?

Remember when Bernie was going on and on about getting money out of politics

While at the same time outraising, outspending and outadvertising Hillary, thus proving that money does not necessarily correlate to anything.

as all bought politicians do.

I don't understand. She made millions off of speeches while not in office (and before running), so why would she need money from anyone? Oh, you mean in regard to running a campaign. In her private life, she and Bill are multi-millionaires from speeches and books. Which means she can't be bought and doesn't need to be "bought."

Are you going to go with another argument from incredulity again?

Trump exposed her very well by simply stating that he had been on of them.

So your evidence is Trump's word?

And she still won, so it's all moot anyway.

If you repeat that enough, do you think it will come true?

It is true. She won the popular vote by millions, but through a technicality, Trump became President. That is a simple fact.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't understand. She made millions off of speeches while not in office (and before running), so why would she need money from anyone? Oh, you mean in regard to running a campaign. In her private life, she and Bill are multi-millionaires from speeches and books. Which means she can't be bought and doesn't need to be "bought."

She has been bought for a very long time. As was mentioned above, it is tragic, because she once had princples. In her more recent years in politics she has been all about what she thinks sells to get her into power.

Trump exposed her very well by simply stating that he had been on of them.

So your evidence is Trump's word?

On that point? Sure. Why not? He's exposing himself along with her by saying it.

It is true. She won the popular vote by millions, but through a technicality, Trump became President. That is a simple fact.

All that tells me is that she lost the game she set out to play with full knowledge of the rules, and that you don't live in a democracy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

1) Failing to be given a secure cellphone is not an excuse to violate classified material handling.

In no way did she "violate" any such thing as there was nothing official to "violate":

There was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails when Clinton was in office, said Daniel Metcalfe, former director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, where he administered implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. High-level officials like Clinton need the flexibility to sometimes use a personal email, such as responding to a national security emergency in the middle of the night.

So it seems she didn’t break a rule simply by using a personal email to conduct business.

But even if there were, again, she was the Secretary of State. She has the ultimate authority to determine what is and is not considered classified in regard to all things in her Department.

2) Just because Powell violated the rules isn't an excuse for anyone to do likewise.

Again, there were no "rules." There were guidelines and recommendations and the like, but no hard and fast rules.

If he violated classified material handling, then he should be charged just like Petraeus and Snowden.

Petraeus deliberately revealed classified information to get laid, basically and Snowden stole and then deliberately released classified information in a "whistleblower" context. The commonality was that they both deliberately acted to reveal classified information for personal reasons. That is a crime; the deliberate act; the INTENT. Not merely that a possibility existed that classified information could be hacked. Once again, if that were the case, then the possibility exists right now in regard to ALL COMPUTERS EVERYWHERE.

There is no such thing as an impenetrable server. Government servers are not magical boxes.

That said, as your link states: "She was the only one to set up a private email server in her home, however, and has admitted this was a mistake." She admits she screwed up.

No, she admitted it was a mistake not that she "screwed up." The mistake part was obvious in that anything she ever does gets automatically turned into a mountain from a mole hill.

3) If even secure government systems have been hacked, smart people realize that Hillary's unsecure system would be a cakewalk for the Chinese.

Her system was not "unsecure." It just wasn't a government server. Once again, government servers are NOT magical impenetrable servers.

 

[Elixir]

dupe - sorry

 

[Elixir]

Even a cursory look at what happened in 2016 should dispel the notion that DJT and HRC are "equivalent" scumbags.
The mere fact that within his own party there was a "never Trump" faction that flipped into full-bore endorsement of Agent Orange and his Nazi-sympathizing ideology, should be a tipoff. There were a lot of Democratic voters who were not happy with HRC's coronation a nominee, but there wasn't a "never Hillary" faction within the party.

Yes there was. They called themselves "Bernie or bust".

What prominent Democrats then in power were "Bernie or bust"ers? None IIRC.
Not like the numerous prominent Republicans who pretended to be principled at the time, chanting "Never Trump!".

- - - Updated - - -

dupe - sorry

 

[Max Rockatansky]

In no way did she "violate" any such thing as there was nothing official to "violate":...

Dude, she passed classified material via unauthorized means. That's illegal. Just because she wasn't prosecuted for it doesn't mean she didn't break the rules.

EDIT: note that your link was written in 2015, long before Comey testified about her investigation. Did you not realize that fact or did you do it deliberately?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Even a cursory look at what happened in 2016 should dispel the notion that DJT and HRC are "equivalent" scumbags.
The mere fact that within his own party there was a "never Trump" faction that flipped into full-bore endorsement of Agent Orange and his Nazi-sympathizing ideology, should be a tipoff. There were a lot of Democratic voters who were not happy with HRC's coronation a nominee, but there wasn't a "never Hillary" faction within the party.

Yes there was. They called themselves "Bernie or bust".

What prominent Democrats then in power were "Bernie or bust"ers? None IIRC.

Ah ok. By the bolded I thought you meant there was no faction. I agree that there was nobody prominent then in power saying it.

dupe - sorry

Don't be sorry.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

She has been bought for a very long time.

So you keep asserting without ever evidencing.

It is true. She won the popular vote by millions, but through a technicality, Trump became President. That is a simple fact.

All that tells me is that she lost the game she set out to play with full knowledge of the rules

How would that have mattered? What happened to result in a technical EC shift was a less than 1% voting differential in certain key counties in just three states. Absolutely no "knowledge of the rules" was at play in such a unique anomalous situation, including, as has often been asserted, the notion that her "ground game" (aka, EC game) was off in some manner. It wasn't. There were many issues that culminated in that miniscule sliver, most prominent among them being a latent as well as blatant racism/sexism among Dem-leaning old white people in rural counties combined with a "Hillary has it locked/Trump can't possibly win/No reason to vote, because I live in a Blue State" attitude in larger populated urban counties.

No "knowledge of the rules" or subsequent change in her "ground game" could have effected either of those conditions.

and that you don't live in a democracy.

We have never been a Democracy. We are a Republic.