I'll take petulant child over felon and probable murderer. At some point, we have to stop rewarding Clintons for breaking the law. When you reward behavior, you get more of it, from Clintons and others. It's enough already.

Sorry, Amy, this is not more of the same. It is a singular moment in American politics. Imagine if the media, instead of investigating Watergate, had decided to give Nixon cover on it. Then imagine if Nixon had access to the vast political machinery of a party that has had undisputed control of all of America's major cities for decades. Imagine if Nixon had had a party with client classes numbering in the tens of millions of voters and the favor of all of the "Eastern banking interests" that the Democrats (and Goldwater Republicans) used to decry.

Hillary's election, and I have no doubt now that she will win, will complete America's transition to banana republic. Past 2016, elections, at least at the national level, will become meaningless rubber-stamp exercises. There will be no viable opposition. Everyone who might be a credible opponent will be either bought off, or marginalized by a combination of government harassment and denouncement from the sycophantic, Party-controlled media.

That said, I might reconsider my vote for Trump at this point. If he has no shot -- and I have zero doubt that Hillary, with a free hand, will put in mechanisms to ensure that she wins no matter what -- then I lose nothing by voting for Johnson. That might be the last chance to express our disapproval of the coming one-party State.

"At some point, we have to stop rewarding Clintons for breaking the law."

Believe me, I am with you on that.

I just think Trump, despite the three party system (watered down through presidential signing statements and such of late), could break the country.

That might be the last chance to express our disapproval of the coming one-party State.
Cousin Dave at July 6, 2016 6:33 AM

This is like expressing your disapproval of a bad call by the ref in the Super Bowl, by refusing to watch the remainder of the game on TV.

You are sending a message to *no one* other than the message that you will take Hillary over the only viable alternative in a two party country.

The only thing that matters at the end of the game is that the democrats rack up enough numbers, and enough fraud in the big cities to chalk one up in the win column and get their name on the trophy.
What they are after is the billions in endorsements that only go to the *crooked* winner.

The Clintons have built their wealth on selling out the US government to foreign countries and special interests.

Hillary Clinton *is* Imelda Marcos.

Voting for Johnson isn't worth the gas it takes to get to the polls.

But I think Alabama is going to go for Trump regardless.

@Isab: Hillary Clinton *is* Imelda Marcos."
I'm going to use that. Thanks

"I think a President Trump would do damage to America's image and standing in the world -- both of which, yes, are important."

So the Secretary of State who helped the Administration blame a video for the killing of an American ambassador hasn't already done damage?

Go to the polls. Say to yourself, "Which vote is likely to get me beat up by the opposition's thugs?"

Now, identify with that group. We know which one it is. They are part of the machine that told Bernie what to do too.

-----

Years ago, we scoffed at the idea that police in the schools and papers and searches to travel would ever come to the USA - and they are here.

The next patdown you get at LAX, thank Hillary. That's what you're voting for. The machine is already in place, and you are going to vote for its leader.

"I just think Trump, despite the three party system (watered down through presidential signing statements and such of late), could break the country."

Uh, Amy? The country's already broken. Broken down to two classes: elites and debt slaves. I'm happily voting Trump. If he can reform Washington, super. If he destroys it, maybe better. Win/win.

"I think a President Trump would do damage to America's image and standing in the world -- both of which, yes, are important."

Not keeping up with current events? What is this *world standing* you speak of, and how could it possibly be damaged more than it has been for the last eight years?

Obama has repeatedly coddled our enemies, such as Iran, brutally destabilizing the Middle East, creating millions of refugees, single handedly dismantling the EU, and given China the green light to start a war in Asia,

I can't even list the rest of his teenage tantrums that have evicerated the rule of law and the separation of powers.

An no one in the middle class has regained anywhere close to the pre inflationary value of their stock portfolio in 2007.

You seriously want to *stay the course* ?

You must really love your ObamaCare.

It must be wonderful to go to a conference in Canada no less, and be oh so culturally sophisticated, all agreeing with each other that Hillary is the only logical choice.

Like you, and anyone else there, has actually paid any attention to the hash the democrats have made of pretty much everything for the last eight years.

"I think a President Trump would do damage to America's image and standing in the world -- both of which, yes, are important." ~ Amy

So the Secretary of State who helped the Administration blame a video for the killing of an American ambassador hasn't already done damage? ~ Radwaste at July 6, 2016 7:26 AM

Not to mention a Secretary of State who used her "charitable foundation" to solicit "contributions" from foreign actors who had business in front of the US State Department. Funny how many of them got the approval they sought immediately after her husband was paid to give a speech.

Is Islam a serious problem coming to a future near you? Vote Hillary if you want to put our foot on the gas going towards that problem. Vote Trump if you want to put on the breaks.

"I think a President Trump would do damage to America's image and standing in the world -- both of which, yes, are important."

As several have said before me, are you paying attention? The damage has already been done. Plus I would place my priorities at home like Trump as opposed to our image and standing abroad.

And let's be honest, Hillary is not going to do anything for our image abroad, except to be friendly by taking bribes and assure the important people they can keep their American Military back-up. The Saudis are big campaign contributors for her.

So the choice is Clinton or Trump.

What commonalities do they share? They are both bigots of one stripe or another, they are both narcissists, they both feel they are owed power, they are both corrupt as hell, and they are both authoritarians eager to wield the cudgel of the Oval Office.

Difference is Trump is hated by the party he represents, and while legislators will support him over Clinton in the election they wont be doing a damn thing to help him once he is in office. And we all know he cant keep his trap shut.

Clinton on the other hand has shown a propensity for deep duplicity, she lies about the dumbest shit. She is like a three year old you catch drawing on the wall who claims "i'm not drawing on the wall" while CONTINUING to draw on the wall. Unlike Trump, democratic legislators will support Clinton.

This woman has stayed in a sham of a marriage for the last 20 years in order to maintain her support ties to the DNC, because as much as Dems officially support free love, abortion, and non traditional family models the candidates they run at the federal level are just as 'family friendly' as the ones put out by the Reps

On top of all that by her own admissions she should be in prison for the way she mishandled classified documents, and were she not such a high ranking political official she would already be in a prison cell.

SO your choice is a bigoted narcissistic authoritarian asshole, or

a bigoted narcissistic authoritarian asshole, who has the support of her political party, the will to use it, a pathological need to lie, and a complete disregard for, and a documented history of deliberately breaking, the rules she is supposed to abide by.

My vote is for the guy no one likes and who will have little to no power being watched like a hawk.

Liberals didnt give a damn about Obama continuing every program and war they wouldnt stop criticizing Bush over, they wont give a damn about Clinton doing what Trump wants to do, albeit to different segments of society

Liberals will makes sure Trump is constrained as much as possible

So the choice is Clinton or Trump.
It may be time to leave for Europe...even there the choices seem better...or maybe Australia?

With Hillary, it's more of the same -- more of what we've always had: Some corrupt person in office. But you know what to expect and the markets and other countries know what to expect.

After watching our nation decline for the last 40 years, more of the same is simply intolerable. I don't care what the markets and other countries expect.

"Too big to jail" has been applied to Hillary Clinton.

FIFY. You're welcome.

Hillary will also have absolute media cover for anything she does. Anyone not toeing that line will be labeled a misogynist.

Also, expect that in the next election cycle that having an open forum discussing the candidates will bring you the attention of the FEC, FCC and likely the IRS.

It may be time to leave for Europe...even there the choices seem better...or maybe Australia?

Places you're not permitted to own firearms, BTW. Also, NannyEU wants more power concentrated in the hands of the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, to include subsuming the member states militaries and unifying the legal codes.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-25/germany-says-we-wont-let-anyone-take-europe-us

I understand that Thailand is a rather nice place.

Amy said:

I will vote for the corrupt adult (Hillary) over the corrupt petulant child (Trump).

Yup. I've tried to draw a parallel in the opposite direction, and it's like Romney vs. Cindy Sheehan, or Boehner vs. Roseanne.

Hillary will also have absolute media cover for anything she does. Anyone not toeing that line will be labeled a misogynist.

What? Her email scandal (and it is a scandal) has been the top news story on TV and in papers for the last week. It's been exhaustively, thoroughly reported, just as Trump's didoes have been exhaustively, thoroughly reported.

That's how you, and I, know about both of them.

One of the problems with Hillary winning the election is she brings with her the win-at-all-costs Democratic Party. Any overreach by her will be met with Democratic ambivalence. Any corruption by her will be abetted and covered up by the party.

Not that the Republicans are pure-of-heart. They've got as many problems as the Democrats. What they don't have is a machine on the ground and the willful compliance of the nation's major media outlets.

Any presidential overreach by Donald Trump will be met with resistance from both Republicans and Democrats. The built-in support of a party apparatus will not be Donald Trump's to use as he sees fit. It will be Hillary's. And her political corruption machine is already well-entrenched within that apparatus.

What? Her email scandal (and it is a scandal) has been the top news story on TV and in papers for the last week. It's been exhaustively, thoroughly reported, just as Trump's didoes have been exhaustively, thoroughly reported. ~ Kevin at July 6, 2016 9:31 AM

When the story became a big issue and was under FBI investigation, the press had to cover it.

However, in covering the e-mail scandal, the press repeats the canard that Hillary "turned over 55,000 e-mails." Wrong. Her staff printed 55,000 (certainly edited) pages of e-mails (including the e-mail chains) and turned them over. The loose pages cannot be electronically searched and must be searched manually.

The press also continues to report that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell used private e-mail servers while at State, implying their situations are identical to Clinton's. Neither Powell nor Rice extensively used e-mail to communicate. Both Powell and Rice complied with all State Department guidelines in effect at the time. Clinton was under a new set of rules designed to govern the increasing use of e-mails and she blatantly disobeyed those rules.

Yes, the press is covering the story, but how they cover it is more important than that they cover it.

This woman's entire adult life has been one long criminal enterprise. And the press is complicit in covering up her crimes.

That Trump is a petulant child does not make her a more palatable choice for president.

> At some point, we have to stop rewarding Clintons for breaking the law. When you reward behavior, you get more of it, from Clintons and others. It's enough already.

It's not just rewarding the Clintons, but rewarding the Democratic Party. They have one job, bring forward leaders who are Presidential in every regard. And yet time after time we are all blackmailed into voting for the lesser of evils. When the strongest argument for your candidate is the lesser evil argument (and the second argument is probably won't blow up the world) then you are failing at your job.

I won't vote for Trump, but at the moment, with regard to my vote, Clinton can get her own damn self elected (and she will).

> The press also continues to report that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell used private e-mail servers while at State, implying their situations are identical to Clinton's. Neither Powell nor Rice extensively used e-mail to communicate. Both Powell and Rice complied with all State Department guidelines in effect at the time. Clinton was under a new set of rules designed to govern the increasing use of e-mails and she blatantly disobeyed those rules.

To expand Conan's point, they had private email accounts managed at a company who knew how to manage email servers, but neither had their own private email server itself (and managed by idiots apparently.)

Yes, the press is covering the story, but how they cover it is more important than that they cover it. This woman's entire adult life has been one long criminal enterprise. And the press is complicit in covering up her crimes.

Conan, serious question: What should the press be doing differently?

I'm voting for Johnson this election. I cannot in good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton. Hopefully my vote will allow Johnson to get matching funds and make the Libertarian party a little more legitimate. I realize I may be "throwing away" my vote but in this election I cannot just hold my nose and vote for one of these clowns.

"Her email scandal (and it is a scandal) has been the top news story on TV and in papers for the last week."

Up yours Kevin.

Her servers exist somewhere but we don't know what's on them.

She deleted thousands of emails and we don't know what's in them.

By turning paper copies of what she wanted to be evaluated she cost us tremendous amounts of money and we don't know what's on them other than some were beyond top secret.

I could go on but truly Kevin, up yours. She's the head of a frigging crime family that has government protection. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is totally honest.

I"d tell you how I really feel about you Kevin but it's not worth my time to respond to bull no matter how it's spun.

I realize I may be "throwing away" my vote

Since your vote is utterly worthless, throwing it away is the appropriate thing to do.

What? Her email scandal (and it is a scandal) has been the top news story on TV and in papers for the last week. It's been exhaustively, thoroughly reported

Have they reported that people who have done similar things with far less sensitive material have been

stripped of their security clearance
terminated from employment
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
imprisoned and/or fined

? or is this like Bill's lying under oath: it was just about sex, everyone does, why are we worrying about it?

For example: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

David Petraeus
Scooter Libby (Hillary's email had names of confidential CIA operatives similar in status to Valerie Plame)

Peg: square. Hole: round. Your mission: fit Peg into Hole, no hammer allowed.

Another example of perfectly sized to prosecute, sucka!

http://theweek.com/articles/634091/hillary-clinton-big-indict

Conan, serious question: What should the press be doing differently? ~ Kevin at July 6, 2016 10:22 AM

As a crime and not a political scandal.

"Her email scandal (and it is a scandal) has been the top news story on TV and in papers for the last week. "

There are significant details not being reported, and the media seems to not be curious about them. Here's one: How did her system get TS-classified emails out of SIPRNET? That's a closed system. They had someone on the inside who had administrator access... the last time that happened, we got Edward Snowden. Who was that person, what did they have access to, and who besides Clinton might have received the information? I haven't seen a single media report mention any of this. If this was a Republican SecState, the media would be digging for the last speck of dirt (and rightly so). But since it's "one of our tribe", they let the details go and don't report any more than they absolutely have to in order to maintain credibility. Remember, the story was known around Washington and in political circles for a year before the mainstream media started reporting on it.

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

Why were those emails deleted this way while the investigation was ongoing?"

How does anyone (obviously other than HRC) get away w/scrubbing servers under investigation?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-14-most-damaging-things-said-about-clintons-emails-at-the-fbi-press-briefing/article/2595620

""None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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," Comey said."

It's probably not possible to "prove" if HRC provided the access but "These newly revealed hacks of private emails took place over the period when then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton was receiving work-related correspondence in her own private accounts, " ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/10/chinese-national-security-officials-hack

I am sorry to hear you are not voting for Trump. I think you have been misled by mischaracterizations of him. He isn't a misogynist. He is not racist. Yet those lies are repeated over and over by people who don't even seem to know what those words mean.

I hope you will come around after the debates between the primary winners.

(These days pirates drive to work too)

How did Shrillary become Tricky Dick II? Wasn't she involved somehow in the takedown of Tricky 40 years ago? For a more honest gubmint? What happened? Power corrupts? or is there more?

Conan, reporting it as a crime would involve a conviction.

Bob, I don't think the Clinton Foundation is honest at all. I'm not quite sure why you're so angry with me, but the fact remains that the email server scandal was widely reported, and that's how you know about the paper copies, the deleted mails, etc.

Dave, can you explain SIPRNET?

Another for Kevin:

https://ricochet.com/hillary-clinton-too-big-to-jail/

As Cousin Dave notes, how did this material get from a secure network onto an unsecured network? as I understand SCIF protocol, no cell phones or other electronic recording devices are permitted. Paper and pen? But even notes would be subject to scrutiny.

Did Hillary suborn her close aides into violating the law?

Viceroy Gunroy: is it legal, my lord?
Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet

It's Wikipedia so there may be more research necessary.

More light reading:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/how-to/a6426/what-is-siprnet-and-wikileaks-4085507/

Kevin, I'm pissed off and anyone that thinks the media is widely reporting HRC's scandal is willfully ignoring multiple issues.

Perhaps that's not you but everyone that's said that also says the Benghazi investigation was much ado about nothing.

(You getting the point yet? As in HOW did we learn about the emails? How many prior investigations did not find the emails?)

Apologies if I've misjudged you.

*****I'm voting for Johnson this election. I cannot in good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton. Hopefully my vote will allow Johnson to get matching funds and make the Libertarian party a little more legitimate. I realize I may be "throwing away" my vote but in this election I cannot just hold my nose and vote for one of these clowns.*****

Beat me to it. I'm voting for what I want. I can't in good conscience vote for the other two yahoos.

At the end of the day, I want to be able to say I tried.

In every state but two (Nebraska and Maine) whichever candidate in the general election gets the most popular votes wins all of the state's electoral college votes.

In states that overwhelmingly favor Clinton, where you know Trump won't win, voting for Trump will have no effect on the outcome of the election. Voting for him won't help him in any way, and voting for someone else won't hurt him.

If you intend to vote for the lesser evil, and that's not Clinton to you, then in states that Trump can win, and in states where it's close, vote for Trump in hopes of defeating Clinton.

But in states where it's clear that Clinton will win, voting for Trump won't make a bit of difference in his chances of becoming president, because Clinton will get all of the state's electoral votes. Your vote for someone else won't hurt his chances either.

But voting for Trump will send a message to the Republican Party that he is the kind of candidate Republican voters want. Your vote will be nothing more than a statement to the political establishment about who you think is a good candidate for president. If Trump gets more votes than any other loser, in future elections the Republican Party will probably try to deliver up more of the same. Votes for the lesser evils in elections prior to 2008 made the Republican Party think that Republican and conservative voters wanted candidates like McCain and Romney. Maybe that's why a year ago they thought Trump was such a joke (well now the joke's on them)

So if you're thinking of voting for Trump because he's not as evil as Clinton, unless you think he has a chance of winning in your state, don't do it. You vote won't help him. Instead, vote for the Libertarian, and let the political establishment get that message.

More light reading:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/how-to/a6426/what-is-siprnet-and-wikileaks-4085507/

Deer libertarians, maybe you should nominate someone who wants to win?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/06/libertarians-on-clinton-email-the-party

The party has the right attitude, the candidate not so much.

Conan, reporting it as a crime would involve a conviction. ~ Kevin at July 6, 2016 4:26 PM

Not necessarily. Many a crime is reported without a conviction, showing an accused and showing revelations of new evidence without going immediately to the defense and getting their side.

But reporting this as a scandal allows Hillary to invoke her "vast right wing conspiracy" defense. She broke the law, a law that does not require intent to harm the US. She didn't have an affair or something legal but reprehensible.

The Watergate break-in and cover-up was reported as a crime and being an actual crime, it eroded Nixon's support among Republicans. Barry Goldwater and a contingent of Republican senators made the trip up the hill to the White House to inform Nixon that he had no support, even from his own party. He resigned shortly thereafter.

The Democrats (and the media) are treating Hillary's e-mail transgressions as a scandal, the same way they treated Bill's perjury, as a Republican-created tempest in a tea pot. So, the Democrats can continue to support Hillary by convincing themselves that this is nothing more than a Republican attempt to derail her presidential campaign and without that, there's nothing to see here.

Most news stories I've seen are reporting the accusations as accusations and showing them as part of a political struggle. Watergate (and, yes, I'm old enough to have seen it firsthand) was reported as a crime, with each new revelation reported not as a he said / she said accusation, but as a new revelation of wrongdoing. Footage of Nixon's response to each revelation was not shown, as Hillary's responses are being shown.

...but the fact remains that the email server scandal was widely reported, and that's how you know about the paper copies, the deleted mails, etc. ~ Kevin at July 6, 2016 4:26 PM

John Edwards' affair was also widely reported - only after the National Enquirer put the story out there and the national media had no choice but to report on it.

Even you are calling it (and treating it as) a scandal. As if the outrage over this is nothing more than a political strategem.

The media tried to blow this off, but their hand was forced. That's how politically inept Hillary really is. She spun a web of deceit around her own wrongdoing which ended up trapping her and may cost her the election. And for what? What was done on the private e-mail server that is worth this to her? What payoff was worth the risk of being caught blatantly violating security protocols and the law?

And the media continues to treat this as nothing more than a political scandal. A former Secretary of State and current presidential candidate played fast and loose with the truth and with national security, violated her own department's security protocols, lied to Congress and the FBI as well as to the public, and broke the law. Without becoming president, Hillary will never again qualify for or be given a national security clearance. And that's not because of a scandal, but a crime.

I wouldn't be surprised to find later that a hostile actor has a blackmail file on Hillary, accumulated entirely from hacked emails.

Two words: Gary Johnson

Try Ross Perot. How'd that turn out, Kate? For the record, I disagree with Amy. Trump is the least bad choice with a chance. At least I will be gone from New York, so my vote may mean something.

"Dave, can you explain SIPRNET?"

It's the DoD's classified network. It's a closed system, with no interconnects to any other networks. If I need to use the SIPRNET for something, I have to go to a locked and shielded room where the computers are. I cannot take in any kind of electronic device (except my security token) or media, not my cell phone, not a memory stick, not a DVD or floppy. If I have on a watch or Fitbit or anything that has any kind of recording capability, I must take it off. There is no printer, and taking screen shots is prohibited (and disabled). All removable media devices on the computer are either disabled or physically removed. I can take notes by hand, but I must them properly mark each page and paragraph with the applicable classification, and mark the overall documents with classification level, authority, and date to declassify. The papers must then be logged into the system and filed in a secure container. Further, for the privilege of doing this, I have signed a non-disclosure agreement with the U.S. government that binds me for life, and explicitly states that mishandling classified information is a felony -- intent does not need to be proven. If you did it, or let it happen on your watch, or knew about it and didn't report it, you are guilty.

At the base where I work, there are a grand total of two people who have admin access. Worldwide, I'd estimate that there are about 200 people with admin access to SIPRNET. They are all highly vetted. Which one was Hillary's gang able to turn? Unless the person who did it was either a die-hard partisan or incredibly naïve, they didn't take all that risk just to get a pat on the back from the SecState. What was the payoff? And if the payoff didn't come from Hillary, who did it come from? The Clinton Foundation? Or, someone else who was also getting access? Since he/she was already breaking the law, were they also passing on the info they obtained to, say, the Russian FSB, in exchange for a nice payday?

Anyway, this is one of the kinds of layers that I was talking about. No one in the media seems to be digging into this the way they dug into Watergate.

Thanks, Dave. A very thorough explanation for the layman.

I agree 100% this should be more widely reported and investigated.

> Thanks, Dave. A very thorough
> explanation for the layman.

☑

Trump? Are you kidding me? The man who praises Saddam ("so he used a little gas....a little gas." To kill Kurds...Saddam was the "best at killing terrorists...no reading of rights." praises the Chinese govt reaction to Tiannamen Square, praised Khaddafi and let him rent his house in Bedford (until the town shut it down due to the Bedouin tents, but Trump brags he made a killing renting to Khaddafi); thinks Kim Jung-un is onto something the way he rules, Trump openly admire admires Putin and basically anyone who get's away with murdering their enemies!

Thinks women should be locked up for getting abortions..."if I am President...," he thinks he can compel all schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag every morning...

Calls McCain a "loser" for being shot down and captured... When Senator Flakes calls him out to his face, Trump threatens to attack him publicly so he will lose his Senate seat (he is not up for re-election, but Trump is willing to try to ruin a fellow Republican because he called him out...Makes fun of and imitates the disability of a reporter with a crippling disease...

All easy to find videos of him saying all of the above.

Hillary is a liar, but she isn't crazy. She knows the rules which is why she set up a server to break them, but she at least has more knowledge about civics than a 6th grader which Trump does not.

PS I can't stand Hillary. However Trump is a disgrace.