Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (10 Viewers)

[Politician Spock]

Nixon resigned in 1974.  Just how old are you?

Imagine if Nixon had the Clinton's PR team. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well given that by court order the second statement was to reflect the first if what you say is true that's a major problem from the outset.

What???

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think I can determine that a "mishandling classified information" crime happened based on only these facts.  For starters the espionage act doesn't say "classified" but uses  "related to the national defense"" which per wikipedia (sorry) "judges have repeatedly said that being 'classified' does not necessarily make information become related to the 'national defense'".   Assuming that hurdle is cleared and the person is knowingly, purposefully taking such information rather than it just being a happenstance from some kind of  temper tantrum on the way out,  I would think that "having knowledge that the same [information related to national defense] 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".  I don't think that previous part of the statute concerning "gross negligence" would apply unless they also "lost" custody,  one way or another of the hard drive.   I would also imagine that regardless of actual "intent" a rather strong inference of wrong doing would exist for investigators from the get go and prosecutors would be more comfortable in selling such an inference to a jury.

Clearly they are in violation of record retention policies assuming they hadn't been "print and file"'ing all along - at least until the end of the year. 

Thanks as always for the food for thought.

However I see it as being removed *or lost, not 'and.' Obviously the information would have been removed. I think that would satisfy that part.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well given that by court order the second statement was to reflect the first if what you say is true that's a major problem from the outset.

What???

I was on mobile so maybe I missed it - is that second statement above from the article? Or somewhere else? I take it it's from the sublinked story by CNN.

The second quote as I understand refers to Hillary's filing in a federal lawsuit, which was in a response to a federal judge's order that she file a sworn affidavit that she had turned over all her work related emails (basically that was the subject of the lawsuit, so that's what was 'responsive' as she put it).

If Hillary meant something other than "all" then she was already in civil perjury territory. If not then after Comey's findings she is definitely there now.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thanks as always for the food for thought.

However I see it as being removed *or lost, not 'and.' Obviously the information would have been removed.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'm saying

(f)

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.
I'm saying that the intentional act of removing the information would seem to qualify for the second part such that the first part would not be all that important unless the hard drive is lost as a second infraction,  Granted I guess a prosecutor might go for both in case a jury flinches but I wasn't thinking in those terms.  Oh, and on second thought the first section might be used in a temper tantrum situation, but I still think that there would need to be knowledge, or an expectation of knowledge about the nature of the information.  I'm also not sure what to do about the "entrusted" and "lawful possession or control" sections so I'm glossing over that.  If somehow I found myself in this position I would have our lawyer friends calling jon to the stand to offer expert testimony that classified information in unsecured email cannot be "lawful possession"  but then again maybe that is enough for section two to have applied when the email was originally received or sent.  But that would be problematic.

The wishy washiness of this reply kind of creates a secondary point in that it takes a bit of "artistic license" in fitting the facts into this statute to create a crime which runs the risk of making the interpretation suddenly applicable to thousands, maybe tens of thousands of honest workers just making honest mistakes doing their jobs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ordered by judge:

the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department.

- Fwiw the suit was for all Hillary's public records. So all her public records would be "responsive".

Sworn affidavit by Hillary:

While I do not know what information may be 'responsive' for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.

Comey's finding of fact:

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain.

 
 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I was on mobile so maybe I missed it - is that second statement above from the article? Or somewhere else? I take it it's from the sublinked story by CNN.

The second quote as I understand refers to Hillary's filing in a federal lawsuit, which was in a response to a federal judge's order that she file a sworn affidavit that she had turned over all her work related emails (basically that was the subject of the lawsuit, so that's what was 'responsive' as she put it).

If Hillary meant something other than "all" then she was already in civil perjury territory. If not then after Comey's findings she is definitely there now.

The second quote is from the CNN article linked to support the misleading premise of the article that "... Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails."  But per the "supporting link" that is not what Hillary signed.    Her actual declaration per the CNN link is filled with qualifiers.
 

 

[squistion]

Imagine if Nixon had the Clinton's PR team. 

If Jesus was on his PR team they couldn't have saved him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'm saying

(f)

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.
I'm saying that the intentional act of removing the information would seem to qualify for the second part such that the first part would not be all that important unless the hard drive is lost as a second infraction,  Granted I guess a prosecutor might go for both in case a jury flinches but I wasn't thinking in those terms.  Oh, and on second thought the first section might be used in a temper tantrum situation, but I still think that there would need to be knowledge, or an expectation of knowledge about the nature of the information.  I'm also not sure what to do about the "entrusted" and "lawful possession or control" sections so I'm glossing over that.  If somehow I found myself in this position I would have our lawyer friends calling jon to the stand to offer expert testimony that classified information in unsecured email cannot be "lawful possession"  but then again maybe that is enough for section two to have applied when the email was originally received or sent.  But that would be problematic.

The wishy washiness of this reply kind of creates a secondary point in that it takes a bit of "artistic license" in fitting the facts into this statute to create a crime which runs the risk of making the interpretation suddenly applicable to thousands, maybe tens of thousands of honest workers just making honest mistakes doing their jobs.

Ok I was thinking of (f)(1) and just that first part the whole time.

I wasn't really challenging you. I was just following your response to Tobias' point about removal. I just don't see the difference for purposes of the blue above between someone creating a server explictly for the purposes of "removal" or just plain up and "removing" it.

I've stated I agree on the intent aspects, though IMO it can reasonably be argued both ways. The point of downloading everything and just taking it seems really obviously intentional, just as having a server where someone who worked in the WH already knew it would happen anyway, but I guess Hillary would have that ace that gosh she just didn't know (even though some things were marked, etc.), I guess she could always plead ignorance, which I guess in a way she did. Lousy thing for someone who wants to be president to say hey I have no idea what classified information is when I see but I'm sure no one currently running could ever have such a thought enter his orange brain. We know this is all academic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The second quote is from the CNN article linked to support the misleading premise of the article that "... Clinton signed documents declaring she had turned over all of her work-related emails."  But per the "supporting link" that is not what Hillary signed.    Her actual declaration per the CNN link is filled with qualifiers.
 

Ok I provided the full language above.

 

[flapgreen]

So many lies. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok I was thinking of (f)(1) the whole time.

I wasn't really challenging you. I just following your response to Tobias' point about removal. I just don't see the difference for purposes of the blue above between someone creating a server explictly for the purposes of "removal" or just plain up and "removing" it.

I've stated I agree on the intent aspects, though IMO it can reasonably be argued both ways. The point of downloading everything and just taking it seems really obviously intentional, just as having a server where someone who worked in the WH already knew it would happen anyway, but I guess Hillary would have that ace that gosh she just didn't know (even though some things were marked, etc.), I guess she could always plead ignorance, which I guess in a way she did. Lousy thing for someone who wants to be president to say hey I have no idea what classified information is when I see but I'm sure no one currently running could ever have such a thought enter his orange brain. We know this is all academic.

Actually the biggest immediate differences that come to mind to me are

• that the person who takes all of his emails already knows at least to some degree the content of the emails on question  (I think a better analogy for your point would be if someone more technically inclined setup a rule to automatically forward everything to a private account - which is explicitly mentioned as a no no in the Foreign Affairs Manual.)
  
• that the person who takes all of his emails have the senders and receivers of such email expecting that it is on a .gov server  (how many times was Hillary's arrangement misrepresented as being some kind of secret?)
  

 

[flapgreen]

If Jesus was on his PR team they couldn't have saved him.

That's funny.  In current times,  nothing would happen to him,  just like with Clinton.  Man you guys are delusional. Smh

 

[Boston]

Imagine if Nixon had the Clinton's PR team. 

Should have just switched to being a Dem...he would still be in office if he did...

 

[squistion]

That's funny.  In current times,  nothing would happen to him,  just like with Clinton.  Man you guys are delusional. Smh

Delusional? Wait, aren't you the guy who keeps saying Obama is the worst President ever?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Actually the biggest immediate differences that come to mind to me are

• that the person who takes all of his emails already knows at least to some degree the content of the emails on question  (I think a better analogy for your point would be if someone more technically inclined setup a rule to automatically forward everything to a private account - which is explicitly mentioned as a no no in the Foreign Affairs Manual.)
  
• that the person who takes all of his emails have the senders and receivers of such email expecting that it is on a .gov server  (how many times was Hillary's arrangement misrepresented as being some kind of secret?)
  

Well on that second point Patrick Kennedy himself testified in depo he did not know about it. Of course he Managed State.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Actually the biggest immediate differences that come to mind to me are

• that the person who takes all of his emails already knows at least to some degree the content of the emails on question  (I think a better analogy for your point would be if someone more technically inclined setup a rule to automatically forward everything to a private account - which is explicitly mentioned as a no no in the Foreign Affairs Manual.)
  
• that the person who takes all of his emails have the senders and receivers of such email expecting that it is on a .gov server  (how many times was Hillary's arrangement misrepresented as being some kind of secret?)
  

Well on that second point Patrick Kennedy himself testified in depo he did not know about it. Of course he Managed State.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok I provided the full language above.

The full language was in my original post.  While a judge might do whatever they want as far as their orders (at least from this layperson's perspective), I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that Hillary return to the State Department what she no longer possessed.   Should we put Colin Powell in jail for contempt for not returning anything?   I'm sure someone can file the necessary FOIA request if it doesn't already exist.  I also don't think that it is a stretch to agree that reasonable people can disagree on what qualified as work related.  How did the FBI ultimately see this?   I though a few days ago you guys asserted that if Comey stated it that you would accept those findings?  

 

[squistion]

OhNoSheTwitnt ‏@OhNoSheTwitnt 15h15 hours ago

Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about improper use of email.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OhNoSheTwitnt ‏@OhNoSheTwitnt 15h15 hours ago

Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about improper use of email.

Imagine if the poor blacks accused of crimes had police chiefs and DAs choose not to prosecute them because they simply *believed their suspects' statements of their intent. 

Heck even poor white people don't get that. Only the richest & most powerful get that. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well on that second point Patrick Kennedy himself testified in depo he did not know about it. Of course he Managed State.

Sorry, not what he said!

Just in case

 

[Sand]

The problem here in that if Hillary is "grossly negligent" in being a party to communicating classified information via non secured email, so is everyone else on these exchanges .

And there should be quite a few people, including Clinton, who should lose their security clearances.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The problem here in that if Hillary is "grossly negligent" in being a party to communicating classified information via non secured email, so is everyone else on these exchanges .

And there should be quite a few people, including Clinton, who should lose their security clearances.  

There should be dozens, if not hundreds of job openings "since anyone else would have lost their jobs".   Have your resume ready?

 

[Sand]

There should be dozens, if not hundreds of job openings "since anyone else would have lost their jobs".   Have your resume ready?

I can't imagine a worse place to live in the US on a govt. salary than DC.

And I'm talking probably the dozen or so who sent classified material to her unsecure email.  Comey talked about administrative options, and for those still in service there should be those brought to bear.  For HRC she's proven conclusively she can't be trusted with a clearance.  If she gets to be POTUS she gets access without the clearance.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There should be dozens, if not hundreds of job openings "since anyone else would have lost their jobs".   Have your resume ready?

I can't imagine a worse place to live in the US on a govt. salary than DC.

And I'm talking probably the dozen or so who sent classified material to her unsecure email.  Comey talked about administrative options, and for those still in service there should be those brought to bear.  For HRC she's proven conclusively she can't be trusted with a clearance.  If she gets to be POTUS she gets access without the clearance.

Do you expect such options will happen to dozens of government employees?

 

[Sand]

Do you expect such options will happen to dozens of government employees?

Good grief, no.  Given past history (like Fast and Furious) they'll get promoted.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you expect such options will happen to dozens of government employees?

Well Blumenthal was banned from the White House and Hillary gave him a 200K/year job birddogging private work off of public policy.

The future's wide open for Abedin, Mills, Sully, Pags: Foundation, Teneo, CGI, any of the assorted friends of the Clintons chipping off private work, sky's the limit.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sorry, not what he said!

Just in case

Ok assuming you will save me the trouble of formatting, he says on Page 82 he did not know Hillary was using a private server until March 2015.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The full language was in my original post.  

While a judge might do whatever they want as far as their orders (at least from this layperson's perspective), I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest that Hillary return to the State Department what she no longer possessed.  

Should we put Colin Powell in jail for contempt for not returning anything?  

I'm sure someone can file the necessary FOIA request if it doesn't already exist.  I also don't think that it is a stretch to agree that reasonable people can disagree on what qualified as work related.  How did the FBI ultimately see this?   

I though a few days ago you guys asserted that if Comey stated it that you would accept those findings?  

Hillary got the request from State in July 2014. She destroyed everything electronic, work and personal in December 2014. Now Comey says there was work related material deleted. When was it deleted? Well we aren't told that. However that's where the search and culling methodology comes in. Right now State is processing a request for all Foundation and Teneo requests. I absolutely guarandamntee you Hillary deleted those, but we don't know because she and right now the FBI won't tell us what methods she took to pull public records. And yes they are public records because State is not opposing their production, they have raised no objection. Of course State says it will take them 27 months to pull and produce those because...... they aren't to be found in Hillary's materials, they have to be pulled from across State to do that instead. There are many other examples.

As for Comey, yeah, I think that's what I recited further up/

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do you expect such options will happen to dozens of government employees?

Good grief, no.  Given past history (like Fast and Furious) they'll get promoted.

Cool!  So the "anyone else would get fired" narrative was always .  Maybe you and others think they should be, but it just isn't the case.    

I guess this a good time for me to reiterate my personal bias that I'm of the opinion that the "50 to 90% of classified information is inappropriately classified" is way on the low side, especially a year or so after the fact for a society governed by the consent of the people.   I tried not to apply that to Hillary's actions (other than to comment on such secrets as the CIA drone program) , but for full disclosure...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As for Comey, yeah, I think that's what I recited further up/

You did not post -

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

 

[skol asylum]

I'm sorry but no matter how much you or anyone else repeats this nonsense it's still nonsense. 

8 years as the most involved First Lady in history. 8 years as a highly influential United States Senator. 4 years as the most visible Secretary of State in modern American history. 20 years as the most admired American woman in the world, second only to Obama as the most admired American in the world. Forged relationships with every major world leader, along with all high ranking politicians on both sides of the aisle. 

One of the most qualified ever. Not even up for debate. 

8 years as the spouse of a POTUS doesn't qualify you for that mantle. She failed spectacularly in healthcare reform. What else did she accomplish other than damage control for Bill and his indescretions?

8 years as this influential Senator. What bills did she sponsor that passed for her legacy? She helped get funding for NY after 9-11. A chimpanzee could have accomplished that.

4 years as a "visible" secretary of state. Landing your plane in as many countrirs as you can for PR pics doesn't make you a success. What successes exactly did she have for the state department in her tenure? Certainly none that overshadow the taint that this email fiasco has brought down on the administration.

I'm sorry but you're delusional Tim.

Trump is terrible. That doesn't mean you need to overreach badly and claim Hillary is the bestest choice evah.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok assuming you will save me the trouble of formatting, he says on Page 82 he did not know Hillary was using a private server until March 2015.

He said he didn't notice, not that it was a secret kept from him,  And he didn't notice because the Secretary's office was not his responsibility.

 

[cobalt_27]

8 years as the spouse of a POTUS doesn't qualify you for that mantle. She failed spectacularly in healthcare reform. What else did she accomplish other than damage control for Bill and his indescretions?

8 years as this influential Senator. What bills did she sponsor that passed for her legacy? She helped get funding for NY after 9-11. A chimpanzee could have accomplished that.

4 years as a "visible" secretary of state. Landing your plane in as many countrirs as you can for PR pics doesn't make you a success. What successes exactly did she have for the state department in her tenure? Certainly none that overshadow the taint that this email fiasco has brought down on the administration.

I'm sorry but you're delusional Tim.

Trump is terrible. That doesn't mean you need to overreach badly and claim Hillary is the bestest choice evah.

Don't forget her war hero moment, evading sniper fire in Bosnia, a lie she told several times in an effort to falsely elevate her foreign policy chops.  She cannot help herself.  She just makes #### up.  And, she's a bad liar, to boot.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

4 years as a "visible" secretary of state. Landing your plane in as many countrirs as you can for PR pics doesn't make you a success. What successes exactly did she have for the state department in her tenure? Certainly none that overshadow the taint that this email fiasco has brought down on the administration.

I'm going to bed so I'm not going to try to reproduce the list I did a few weeks back with things like the deal with China over climate or START with Russia.  Or the foundations she laid for the Iran deal or opening up Cuba.   Not to mention more generically repairing the damage caused by "Cowboy Diplomacy".  But instead of trying to remember what else I'll post what I forgot back then-

This speech 

 

[Sand]

Cool!  So the "anyone else would get fired" narrative was always .  Maybe you and others think they should be, but it just isn't the case.    

Not my narrative - I only talked about losing clearances.   We've seen way too much lately - IRS, F&F, etc. to know that these folks almost never lose jobs over this stuff.  Much more likely to get strung up if you're Republican and have a wide stance.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You did not post -

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

Ah. Well yeah if I'm asking others to hang their hat on Comey I guess I should too.

But that is a really, really important point. And really we can't validate his point until we see that search list.

Nonetheless IIRC we were talking solely about the affidavit language you quoted so to that point what you have here is irrelevant. The sole question for that is if she produced all official emails in her possession after getting notice in July 2014. Comey did say some had been deleted, he did not say when.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Anyone in the Hillary camp explain why she repeatedly lied about it all yet?

Because it feels good.

 

[tommyboy]

That's not actually an advertisement.  There is certainly a good amount of fair use for those clips, I'm just not sure that includes an advertisement.  

Trump did one on his Facebook page. These are public people. Their words and images are fair use

 

[Daywalker]

Why do Republicans want Hillary indicted at this point?

Sanders and Biden are stronger candidates.  

 

[tommyboy]

Everything Hillary turns to shut and she has to lie about it. And people think she's qualified.  I'd say that's more of an indictment of those people than of Hillary. 

 

[Daywalker]

Anyone in the Hillary camp explain why she repeatedly lied about it all yet?

I imagine she thought it would hurt her chances of winning the primary.   Her candidacy would get so far along no one would indict her.  If she came clean a year ago perhaps she is indicted.  Politicians lie?

 

[dparker713]

That's funny.  In current times,  nothing would happen to him,  just like with Clinton.  Man you guys are delusional. Smh

Maybe, maybe not.  Nixon was a paradigm shift for the entire country regarding the trustworthiness of politicians.

 

[dparker713]

Imagine if the poor blacks accused of crimes had police chiefs and DAs choose not to prosecute them because they simply *believed their suspects' statements of their intent. 

Heck even poor white people don't get that. Only the richest & most powerful get that. 

Money always helps, but powerful isn't generally a help in the criminal justice system - that makes you infamous.  

 

[dparker713]

Trump did one on his Facebook page. These are public people. Their words and images are fair use

That's so not true.  There may be an exception for political ads, but public people very much have the right to decide when and where their words and images are used for advertisement. 

 

[msommer]

Mead was the first alcoholic drink humans ever made, and it is by far the easiest. It's possible to make it complicated if you want, but the simplest recipe works just fine.

Take a glass jar and put about 25% raw honey in it with about 75% water. You don't even have to add yeast (as long as the honey is raw). Cap the jar and shake it vigorously for 30 seconds at least once a day for a month. It will start to become carbonated as it ferments, so take the cap off before and after shaking to relieve the pressure. Then just let it sit for between six months and two years. Taste it periodically throughout (as it become more tangy and less sweet) to find the point where it tastes best to you. Voila.

Small wonder the Sumerians switched to beer. Their diinishing attention span could not cope with the 6-24 month timeframe

 

[MaxThreshold]

Don't forget her war hero moment, evading sniper fire in Bosnia, a lie she told several times in an effort to falsely elevate her foreign policy chops.  She cannot help herself.  She just makes #### up.  And, she's a bad liar, to boot.  

If she wins the election, I can almost guarantee you that the Republicans will clean up in the '18 and '20 elections.  She won't last more than 4 years.

Of course, if Trump wins then the same thing will happen to Republicans.  THAT's how equally bad these choices are.

 

[Poppa]

Maybe, maybe not.  Nixon was a paradigm shift for the entire country regarding the trustworthiness of politicians.

Nixon on the heels of Vietnam. Absolutely yes...

 

[Guest]

Why do Republicans want Hillary indicted at this point?

Sanders and Biden are stronger candidates.  

Theater.

 

[Guest]

OhNoSheTwitnt ‏@OhNoSheTwitnt 15h15 hours ago

Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about improper use of email.

Is it possible that we at once need reforms in our police departments, AND our political system - or are we only able to carry one idea around at a time?