Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And as we know there's no way to really recognize classified information without markings

Of course there is still one other tiny little difference in your scenario.   Adam was not the classification authority,

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Of course there is still one other tiny little difference in your scenario.   Adam was not the classification authority,

Yes that's right this relates to every non cabinet member in the military, diplomatic and intelligence agencies.

I suppose any cabinet member can give away every classified document  to anyone anywhere as they see fit under this rule. All they have to say is they declassified them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

and it's easy to overlook teh markings when they're there

Especially easy when the markings are inappropriately applied in respect to both the technical requirements and the actual content.  But of course, Adam does not have the authority to use his discretion in these scenarios.  

But, I'm off to work so you get the last word.  Go ahead and argue that it is a double standard that classification authorities are by definition uniquely trusted to use their discretion. That being said I find the vast quantity of over classification reasons to question the abuse of this authority, but in the opposite direction from all of this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But it's not like she set up the servers herself and made a technical error on something she wasn't qualified to install. She WAS making the big picture decisions. You're just kidding yourself if you think this was all technology mistakes. The decisions to conduct state business on a personal server, to stonewall FOIA requests, to delete 30,000 emails - and to lie about it all - were all her judgment and had nothing to do with trying to do the "techie job" of Secretary of State.

This is exactly right.  When deciding how to handle her email, Clinton faced two "big picture" questions:

1) Do I believe in open government, or are open-records laws an unreasonable intrusion?

2) At what rate am I willing to trade off national security for some other value (in this case, avoiding open-records laws)?

The way she handled this tells us that she deeply disagrees with Obama and many other members of her own party when it comes to government transparency.  And she feels strongly enough about that that she was willing to risk giving the Russians and Chinese (but not American voters) access to her emails.  

 

[pantagrapher]

lol

Should I use the company's crappy, nonsecure email system that I can't even access with my phone or set up a system like the one previous people in my position had?

 

[pantagrapher]

Let the email thing go, guys.

 

[pantagrapher]

Oh, and a quick reminder before you reply: let it go.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Must post three times in rapid succession so people know how deeply I don't care about this topic.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I don't feel as good as I did before the Tuesday announcement, certainly. I think Hillary has deliberately misled about some of this. 

But I also don't believe, as I did Tuesday morning, that it's as bad as I thought it was. Corey's admission that Hillary might not have recognized what was classified, plus the Politifact article which discusses the differences in opinion about what is and what isn't classified, all of that made me feel better. 

Mostly though, my feeling from the very beginning of this was confirmed: most of the criticism against Hillary has come from tech types, both here and elsewhere. But the job of Secretary of State, like the job of President, is not a techie job. I don't WANT Hillary Clinton, or the President, to be concerned with what is and what is not classified and where to store it. Just as I also don't want her dealing with security at embassies. These duties are beneath her, IMO. I want her trying to solve international disputes, fight terrorism, make trade deals, negotiate. I want her solving the BIG PICTURE. That's why I've always felt this entire issue of emails is irrelevant to her qualifications to be President. 

Sorry, not someone I want running my country. You dont know what material is classified? Supposing its "hard to tell" as some Politifact article suggests...so we just wing it and hope it isnt? Again, not the type of leader Im looking for. 

Beneath her? 

 

[The Commish]

lol

Should I use the company's crappy, nonsecure email system that I can't even access with my phone or set up a system like the one previous people in my position had?

She chose option C "do my own thing that no one has ever done before".  It would have been better for her to go the way previous people in her position went.  It's been established that gmail, hotmail, etc would have been more secure than what she came up with....terrible display of judgment.

 

[pantagrapher]

She chose option C "do my own thing that no one has ever done before".  It would have been better for her to go the way previous people in her position went.  It's been established that gmail, hotmail, etc would have been more secure than what she came up with....terrible display of judgment.

It's not something worth dwelling on for years and years with this outsized degree of selective outrage. 

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, not someone I want running my country. You dont know what material is classified? Supposing its "hard to tell" as some Politifact article suggests...so we just wing it and hope it isnt? Again, not the type of leader Im looking for. 

Beneath her? 

But you wanted her before this story broke, right? You were a Hillary fan and the email thing changed your mind, correct? 

 

[HellToupee]

This should be a day to drop all the political nonsense on both sides 

 

[Cjw_55106]

But you wanted her before this story broke, right? You were a Hillary fan and the email thing changed your mind, correct? 

Nope. Just another form of confirmation. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's not something worth dwelling on for years and years with this outsized degree of selective outrage. 

You're doing your country a disservice by wasting this valuable advice in some random thread on the internet.  You need to share this wisdom with the FBI and State Department.  Quickly -- they need to know that they shouldn't be dwelling on this topic.  Your country needs you.

 

[pantagrapher]

You're doing your country a disservice by wasting this valuable advice in some random thread on the internet.  You need to share this wisdom with the FBI and State Department.  Quickly -- they need to know that they shouldn't be dwelling on this topic.  Your country needs you.

They're just covering their butts. I don't see them feigning outrage about anything.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This should be a day to drop all the political nonsense on both sides 

Agree.

 

[The Commish]

She chose option C "do my own thing that no one has ever done before".  It would have been better for her to go the way previous people in her position went.  It's been established that gmail, hotmail, etc would have been more secure than what she came up with....terrible display of judgment.

It's not something worth dwelling on for years and years with this outsized degree of selective outrage.

Your battle here is probably better fought with your government.  You go tell them it's not a big deal and not worth the effort to investigate.  For me, it's another piece of evidence towards her poor judgment that will be part of her legacy.  We have two extremes here that are absolutely fascinating to watch from a mental gymnastics perspective.  Those that think she should burn in hell and those that think it's no big deal.  It's tough to discern which is putting on the better show.  For now, I'm not really concerned with figuring that out.  I'm enjoying the show.  

 

[NutterButter]

You're doing your country a disservice by wasting this valuable advice in some random thread on the internet.  You need to share this wisdom with the FBI and State Department.  Quickly -- they need to know that they shouldn't be dwelling on this topic.  Your country needs you.

What they still need to figure out is why people are sending classified emails to an obvious unsecure email account and why people aren't following proper protocol when marking up documents as classified.  

 

[Jayrok]

The person with the sophistication to mark the email was the one that sent the information on the non secured network as content in email.  That person may have intended for it stay "in house", but this is the person who put the information on an inappropriate system. 

I was curious as to how any type of email with classified info within could reach a private network server from a secure network.  Physically, someone would have to get the message on a secured network, copy it to a mobile drive, and transfer it onto the private network for her to view.  But flash drives are not allowed in a SCIF.  Of course, we are talking about the State Department here.  

But, after reading about how this transpired, it appears that none of it was originally marked with anything.  Here's two articles that essentially say that her emails were reviewed and marked classified with the (C) and (S) later, or retroactively, by the State Department.  Emails floated back and forth, replied to and forwarded to and from people who sent messages to her private email address.  Foreign heads of state wouldn't care about any US classification system.  They just send docs and emails to an email address or web address.  The whole thing is just a big cluster####.  

 

[badmojo1006]

This should be a day to drop all the political nonsense on both sides 

Yet people still continue to post in this thread

 

[dparker713]

Yeah, pretty sure "law and order" and referencing Hillary in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Trump is a clown.  Anytime anything serious happens, he makes that abundantly clear.

 

[NutterButter]

I was curious as to how any type of email with classified info within could reach a private network server from a secure network.  Physically, someone would have to get the message on a secured network, copy it to a mobile drive, and transfer it onto the private network for her to view.  But flash drives are not allowed in a SCIF.  Of course, we are talking about the State Department here.  

But, after reading about how this transpired, it appears that none of it was originally marked with anything.  Here's two articles that essentially say that her emails were reviewed and marked classified with the (C) and (S) later, or retroactively, by the State Department.  Emails floated back and forth, replied to and forwarded to and from people who sent messages to her private email address.  Foreign heads of state wouldn't care about any US classification system.  They just send docs and emails to an email address or web address.  The whole thing is just a big cluster####.  

Something at least the two of us can agree.   This whole outrage over what one person did or didn't do in a total mess of a process is comical.   

 

[dparker713]

What they still need to figure out is why people are sending classified emails to an obvious unsecure email account and why people aren't following proper protocol when marking up documents as classified.  

Because the government classifies way too much ####.  Hillary's schedule was classified as a matter of policy.  It's stupid #### like that getting classified all the time.

 

[Jayrok]

When Comey was asked about the investigation into Hillary lying to Congress what was his answer?

When Comey was asked about corruption at the foundation what was his answer?

This being a "criminal investigation" doesn't change the fact that this investigation was limited in scope to the original security referral.  Maybe there are other on going or soon to be initiated investigations for other items,  but not here.

 And sorry, I have lost count of how many times you have been reminded that SBU may be a "classification", it is not and cannot be used as a classification level for classified information.

(CT:IM-117; 06-16-2011)

a. Information may be classified at one of the three levels described below. Except as otherwise provided by statute (e.g., the Atomic Energy Act for Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data), no other terms may be used to identify United States classified information. If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it should be classified at the lower level.

b. Top Secret applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

c. Secret applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

d. Confidential applies to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the OCA is able to identify or describe.

Oh, and I underlined the "may be" piece because it is so often forgotten by the security experts.

One of the sad parts of all this is Hillary Clinton, as SoS, is the OCA for the State Department.  Comey says she isn't sophisticated enough to understand markings... and she is the OCA.  oof.  

 

[Guest]

But it's not like she set up the servers herself and made a technical error on something she wasn't qualified to install. She WAS making the big picture decisions. You're just kidding yourself if you think this was all technology mistakes. The decisions to conduct state business on a personal server, to stonewall FOIA requests, to delete 30,000 emails - and to lie about it all - were all her judgment and had nothing to do with trying to do the "techie job" of Secretary of State.

This.  This is the root of it.  None of this was accidental.  It was orchestrated, by Hillary.

 

[Jayrok]

Something at least the two of us can agree.   This whole outrage over what one person did or didn't do in a total mess of a process is comical.   

I can see that it can be comical to some that don't care much about the potential ramifications of sensitive conversations.  It is your right.  It's my right to be concerned with how conversations between our government officials, departments, and others outside our country are carried out and secured.  Perhaps it is just me.  

 

[pantagrapher]

I can see that it can be comical to some that don't care much about the potential ramifications of sensitive conversations.  It is your right.  It's my right to be concerned with how conversations between our government officials, departments, and others outside our country are carried out and secured.  Perhaps it is just me.  

Weird that it wasn't really an issue anyone cared about until they thought it could take down Hillary.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I was curious as to how any type of email with classified info within could reach a private network server from a secure network.  Physically, someone would have to get the message on a secured network, copy it to a mobile drive, and transfer it onto the private network for her to view.  But flash drives are not allowed in a SCIF.  Of course, we are talking about the State Department here.  

But, after reading about how this transpired, it appears that none of it was originally marked with anything.  Here's two articles that essentially say that her emails were reviewed and marked classified with the (C) and (S) later, or retroactively, by the State Department.  Emails floated back and forth, replied to and forwarded to and from people who sent messages to her private email address.  Foreign heads of state wouldn't care about any US classification system.  They just send docs and emails to an email address or web address.  The whole thing is just a big cluster####.  

Definitely a cluster. Hillary did not exhibit good judgement, but I agree with some of the posts that the technology really should have been handled for her by top Information Technologists, with no choice or discussion. Those systems should be secure and in-place for the Secretary of State to walk into, provided by career IT professionals that work for the departments in apolitical roles. Very odd that it came to this, where the actual cabinet member is responsible for the IT setup. It's weird. I'm not getting on board with any conspiracies beyond that. Sadly it just gets spun into talking points on both sides.

 

[NutterButter]

I can see that it can be comical to some that don't care much about the potential ramifications of sensitive conversations.  It is your right.  It's my right to be concerned with how conversations between our government officials, departments, and others outside our country are carried out and secured.  Perhaps it is just me.  

After looking at the two emails of the 3 that hillary sent that were mistakenly classified, its a little ridiculous what we're even making a big deal about.   When I hear classified, I'm thinking top secret stuff when it turns out at least those 2 had to deal with something completely harmless.  

 

[Jayrok]

Weird that it wasn't really an issue anyone cared about until they thought it could take down Hillary.

I can only speak for myself, but I've stated already that it doesn't matter to me who this was.  If John Kerry is doing this type of thing as SoS, he should be investigated too and it should be stopped and corrected.  Ditto George Bush, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Gingrich, Palin, Paul Ryan, Bernie Sanders, and so forth.  

 

[pantagrapher]

I can only speak for myself, but I've stated already that it doesn't matter to me who this was.  If John Kerry is doing this type of thing as SoS, he should be investigated too and it should be stopped and corrected.  Ditto George Bush, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Gingrich, Palin, Paul Ryan, Bernie Sanders, and so forth.  

So the standard now is that it should be stopped and corrected. OK. Fine. I'm sure we can all agree on that. Let's move on.

 

[Jayrok]

After looking at the two emails of the 3 that hillary sent that were mistakenly classified, its a little ridiculous what we're even making a big deal about.   When I hear classified, I'm thinking top secret stuff when it turns out at least those 2 had to deal with something completely harmless.  

One of her conversations dealt with a North Korean missile launch test and discussion about what to do about it, details, etc.  But I can agree with you that one or two that are found to be classified aren't that many.  It's the culture of the whole thing that disturbs me most.  There was a culture of lackadaisical behavior within a department that is important to national security.  Whether it is one, two or 10,000 we are talking about.  It needs to be corrected.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I can only speak for myself, but I've stated already that it doesn't matter to me who this was.  If John Kerry is doing this type of thing as SoS, he should be investigated too and it should be stopped and corrected.  Ditto George Bush, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Gingrich, Palin, Paul Ryan, Bernie Sanders, and so forth.  

That's great but it doesn't change his point. Nobody cared about this stuff before it became a way to take down Hillary Clinton. It's super easy to say you care about this stuff regardless of who's doing it now, not quite so easy to demonstrate that you (or anyone, including the press) cared about this stuff two years ago.

 

[Jayrok]

Clinton could have had her private email system and still kept it secure and legal.  They could have configured a cross-domain solution where the email traffic (just the ones that could be classified) could have securely been processed from a secure network, through the CDS, onto the unsecure network to her server.  It would have provided a secure solution to her request.  

 

[Jayrok]

That's great but it doesn't change his point. Nobody cared about this stuff before it became a way to take down Hillary Clinton. It's super easy to say you care about this stuff regardless of who's doing it now, not quite so easy to demonstrate that you (or anyone, including the press) cared about this stuff two years ago.

True.  I didn't know about it two years ago.  But please believe me, I would have had the same opinions then regardless of who the SoS happened to be.  I freely admit that I have a more passionate point of view here than others.  I've had personal experience with stuff similar to this and I've seen colleagues lose much more than face.  It just struck a chord.  

 

[NutterButter]

One of her conversations dealt with a North Korean missile launch test and discussion about what to do about it, details, etc.  But I can agree with you that one or two that are found to be classified aren't that many.  It's the culture of the whole thing that disturbs me most.  There was a culture of lackadaisical behavior within a department that is important to national security.  Whether it is one, two or 10,000 we are talking about.  It needs to be corrected.

According to Comey, only 3 emails which she were marked classified at the time and improperly with 2 of them incorrectly classified to begin with.  So that leaves the one who's contents I haven't seen mentioned.   Its the sudden outrage that I find comical as well b/c its Hillary and she's running for President and I'm going to go out on a limb by saying those that are most critical of this didn't want to see her elected in the first place prior to any of this coming to light.  

 

[Guest]

More than any other election cycle I remember, few are discussing policy issues. The emotional populist #### is front and center.  Personally, I don't trust either candidate, and believe they'll say anything to get elected and change course with the wind.  I also suspect both feel a need to stoke aggression as a product of their egos.  But still, most voters aren't demanding anything specific from these candidates, other than they not be each other.  Another thing that is dangerous and will allow the winner to avoid specific accountability.  

 

[Jayrok]

According to Comey, only 3 emails which she were marked classified at the time and improperly with 2 of them incorrectly classified to begin with.  So that leaves the one who's contents I haven't seen mentioned.   Its the sudden outrage that I find comical as well b/c its Hillary and she's running for President and I'm going to go out on a limb by saying those that are most critical of this didn't want to see her elected in the first place prior to any of this coming to light.  

I mentioned up earlier that the State Department was the entity that actually classified those emails and they did it after the fact (after they reviewed them later).  IOW, the originator who sent them to Clinton did not classify them either and they weren't sent on the proper network.  So it isn't just Clinton who is at fault here, imo.  She just happened to be the SoS who should have known better to discuss certain things on a nonsecure network.  Again, lackadaisical culture.  It wasn't just her.  

 

[pantagrapher]

More than any other election cycle I remember, few are discussing policy issues.  

It's no mystery why the GOP is going to flood the airwaves with talk about email for the next four months.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Especially easy when the markings are inappropriately applied in respect to both the technical requirements and the actual content.  But of course, Adam does not have the authority to use his discretion in these scenarios.  

But, I'm off to work so you get the last word.  Go ahead and argue that it is a double standard that classification authorities are by definition uniquely trusted to use their discretion. That being said I find the vast quantity of over classification reasons to question the abuse of this authority, but in the opposite direction from all of this.

That's fine, as I said above though:

- For all non-cabinet members who are employees of diplomatic, intelligence and military agencies they can simply feel free to transfer classified information to unauthorized locales with impunity. I guess they can face administrative penalties but no illegal penalties.

- For all cabinet level employees they can just claim they declassified everything and they can give any and every classified document they like to anyone in the world without fear of reprisal or punishment because they can claim they declassified it (in their head).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's no mystery why the GOP is going to flood the airwaves with talk about email for the next four months.

Let me save you the trouble. Here are your themes:

Hillary: NRA.

Trump: Mosquitos and sheriff stars.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But it's not like she set up the servers herself and made a technical error on something she wasn't qualified to install. She WAS making the big picture decisions. You're just kidding yourself if you think this was all technology mistakes. The decisions to conduct state business on a personal server, to stonewall FOIA requests, to delete 30,000 emails - and to lie about it all - were all her judgment and had nothing to do with trying to do the "techie job" of Secretary of State.

This is exactly right.

Comey testified that he didn't think Clinton instructed her lawyers to delete the emails or was even aware that they would do so. That decision, at least, may not have come from Clinton herself. (Also, because of the comma, I'm not sure whether NorvilleBarnes is saying that the server was set up to avoid FOIA requests -- as opposed to the server and the stonewalling being separate issues. Comey didn't specifically investigate whether the server was set up to avoid FOIA requests rather than for personal convenience, but he did say that he didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude that Hillary's explanation to the FBI about it was untruthful.)

One thing that I think Comey dispelled very persuasively was the conspiracy theory about the timing of Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch, Comey's public statement, and Obama's campaigning with Hillary. I always wonder how some people can be so certain about stuff that doesn't seem obvious at all to me -- what am I missing? It turns out that I wasn't missing anything on that one: those events were not coordinated. Nobody outside the FBI knew that Comey was going to announce anything on Tuesday until right before it happened. At the time that Bill Clinton met with Lynch, and at the time that Obama decided to campaign with Hillary, neither Bill nor Hillary nor Lynch nor Obama had any idea whether the FBI had reached a decision about whether to recommend bringing charges, what the decision was or would be, when it would be announced, or even whether it would be publicly announced. Comey was adamant that none of that was leaked to anyone outside of the FBI.

 

[Politician Spock]

Comey testified that he didn't think Clinton instructed her lawyers to delete the emails or was even aware that they would do so. That decision, at least, may not have come from Clinton herself. (Also, because of the comma, I'm not sure whether NorvilleBarnes is saying that the server was set up to avoid FOIA requests -- as opposed to the server and the stonewalling being separate issues. Comey didn't specifically investigate whether the server was set up to avoid FOIA requests rather than for personal convenience, but he did say that he didn't have sufficient evidence to conclude that Hillary's explanation to the FBI about it was untruthful.)

One thing that I think Comey dispelled very persuasively was the conspiracy theory about the timing of Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch, Comey's public statement, and Obama's campaigning with Hillary. I always wonder how some people can be so certain about stuff that doesn't seem obvious at all to me -- what am I missing? It turns out that I wasn't missing anything on that one: those events were not coordinated. Nobody outside the FBI knew that Comey was going to announce anything on Tuesday until right before it happened. At the time that Bill Clinton met with Lynch, and at the time that Obama decided to campaign with Hillary, neither Bill nor Hillary nor Lynch nor Obama had any idea whether the FBI had reached a decision about whether to recommend bringing charges, what the decision was or would be, when it would be announced, or even whether it would be publicly announced. Comey was adamant that none of that was leaked to anyone outside of the FBI.

I agree Comey was adamant about that. But as we are now well aware, people in government are "careless" which leads to leaks. 

On July 2, three days before Comey supposedly unknown announcement, Trump tweeted:

"It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713

I'm not suggesting Comey lied. I'm acknowledging the possibility that Comey is not aware of a leak in the FBI. 

 

[dparker713]

I agree Comey was adamant about that. But as we are now well aware, people in government are "careless" which leads to leaks. 

On July 2, three days before Comey supposedly unknown announcement, Trump tweeted:

"It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713

I'm not suggesting Comey lied. I'm acknowledging the possibility that Comey is not aware of a leak in the FBI. 

You just used Donald Trump as a source.  Think on that.

 

[Politician Spock]

You just used Donald Trump as a source.  Think on that.

He's as corrupt as Hillary. If there's a leak, he'd know about it. 

 

[cubd8]

I agree Comey was adamant about that. But as we are now well aware, people in government are "careless" which leads to leaks. 

On July 2, three days before Comey supposedly unknown announcement, Trump tweeted:

"It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713

I'm not suggesting Comey lied. I'm acknowledging the possibility that Comey is not aware of a leak in the FBI. 

I don't think there was any inside knowledge by Trump. I think CNN reported that it was unlikely there would be any charges filed and his tweet was alluding to that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I agree Comey was adamant about that. But as we are now well aware, people in government are "careless" which leads to leaks. 

On July 2, three days before Comey supposedly unknown announcement, Trump tweeted:

"It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713

I'm not suggesting Comey lied. I'm acknowledging the possibility that Comey is not aware of a leak in the FBI. 

There were goofy people who swore they had inside info that charges would be brought, and other goofy people who swore they had inside info that charges would not be brought. No matter what the decision was, it was guaranteed to line up with somebody's prediction. Therefore, the fact that his decision lined up with somebody's prediction is not evidence, in any sense, that it had been leaked.

 

[NutterButter]

So much more dramatic to say there's a leak

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I find it kind of surprising that people freak out so much about the fact the Hillary is dishonest. First of all, she's a politician, so no #### she's dishonest; the vast majority of them are, on both sides. Second, looking back at the history of the office, it kind of seems irrelevant to job performance. Jimmy Carter is likely one of the most genuinely good human beings ever to sit in the Oval Office, and was a disaster as President. The Reagan administration was the most scandal / corruption filled in history, and Reagan was a very good President. Hillary's husband is a complete slimy POS, and was likewise a solid President. Plenty of examples that cut both ways. Sure, if all else is equal, we'd all rather have a completely honest and transparent person running the country -- but good luck with that. And, of course, all else is very rarely equal. It's certainly not this year given Cheeto Jesus. It's completely unsurprising that the usual group of derpy right-wing Fox-bots are regurgitating the manufactured outrage; that's what they do. What is surprising is the number of folks who can actually think for themselves who have joined this bandwagon. Gotta say, I don't really get it.