Listen, I hear what you people are saying. I *know* how much is at stake here, okay? I swear to God I do. But

I will not vote for that woman.

I will not vote for that woman.

I will not vote for that woman.

I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman. I will not vote for that woman.

I will not vote for that woman.

Won't. Will not. Would rather sit it out.

I think there is a problem understanding the English language here. She was permitted - repeat, was permitted - to use the private email server but she failed to follow the proper regulations for preserving the emails.

It shouldn't be permitted and Clinton deserves the criticism for her record-keeping, but this is way overblown. She will be an outstanding president.

Crid, really? When push comes to, well, Trump possibly being elected?

Then again, we're both in California. California is unlikely to go for Trump.

Damn the libertarians for once again being so absent.

She's the top dog in the State Dept. and is responsible for ultimately deciding what is/is not classified.

But instead of taking responsibility for her daily practices she parses words:

- "was not marked classified", of course not asshat most of what you initially see has not gone through any oversight (that's your job).

I could go on but it's hopeless. If you like your plan you can keep it and he's still in office? Dems/Libs know what they want and like hookers only haggle over price.

Josh: "I think there is a problem understanding the English language here."

You are absolutely right; both Clintons (and probably their offspring too) have had problems misusing the English language (it depends upon what your definition of the word IS is).

The Clintons, like so many others like them, think that the laws do not need to be followed by themselves.

It absolutely was NOT permitted. Lower-down-the-rung State Department employees have been fired for doing what she did.

Hillary believes, and it is so often true, that if she lies the MSM will treat what she says as truth. Jake Tapper is something of a rarity in the MSM.

As for your comment Josh, "she will be a outstanding President," I cannot tell if you are that naïve or are you being sarcastic.

She would not even be a "okay" President. Just look at how she handle Benghazi! Her lie about it being a "spontaneous" protest against a video is just shameful.

First off, it was NOT a "spontaneous" protest; it was a terrorist attack in which Americans died. Second, even if it was a protest she should have stood up for American values - the constitutional value of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Instead, she did NOT stand up for the US; She decided to lie about the attack by blaming some one in the US for it happening.

I don't consider that action a hallmark of an "outstanding" president.

And, Amy, I'm sort of getting my mind used to the idea of a Trump Presidency. Really, can it be any worse than 8 years of the Obamas? (It is a shame when I find myself thinking THAT way - can it be any worse than . . . It just shows you how low we have sunk)

Hillary, and her supports, are more annoying than that smelly dog shit that gets stuck in the tread of your shoe because someone didn't clean up after their dog!

I'm white, I'm female, and I will not vote for that woman.

We've had presidential politicians before who played fast and loose with the truth on a regular basis. Remember Nixon? How about Bill Clinton?

The difference is that most of our successful outwardly dishonest politicians displayed competence prior to being elected that helped them vindicate themselves. Nixon had Alger Hiss to showcase his anti-communist bona fides whereas Hilly has Libya. Bill Clinton had a balanced budget in Arkansas, whereas Hillary has dodging bullets in Sarajevo.

Edward Kennedy was as dishonest as they came, but he had a long record in the Senate, sponsoring bills, making speeches, and generally taking a stand on controversial issues. Hillary, on the other hand, sponsored no significant legislation while in the Senate, made no lasting speeches, took no stand, and generally spent her time in the Senate occupying a chair.

The Longs of Louisiana and the Daleys of Chicago were generally considered to be venal politicians, but they were considered competent, at least until Earl went crazy. Hillary has shown the venality, but not the competence of an old school machine Democrat.

In her responses to the scandals, Hillary is trying without success to replicate Nixon's Checkers Speech or Roosevelt's Fala Speech, to deflect the scandal onto the other party by using warm fuzzies to humanize herself and demonize her attackers. Note to Hillary: get a cute little dog; cute little dog speeches work better that way.

She can't even do that right. She's venal and incompetent, a dangerous combination.

"-was not marked 'classified' " - Bob in Texas

Classified material is marked only with these three words: " Top Secret", " Secret" and " Confidential"

But the word " Classified" is not typed on a classified document.

So when she says, " I did not send or receive any document marked 'Classified' ", she is telling the truth Clinton style.

I think there is a problem understanding the English language here. She was permitted - repeat, was permitted - to use the private email server but she failed to follow the proper regulations for preserving the emails. ~ Josh Kilroy at May 15, 2016 1:18 AM

No problem - at least on our end. You, however, may want to take remedial reading.

Yes, Hillary was permitted to use a non-government e-mail system for some of her State Department business. You know, to work from home, to work from her phone, to dash off quick notes to underlings, etc. She was required to subsequently make sure a copy of said e-mails found its way to a government server (e.g., cc herself, etc.).

She was not "permitted" to use a home-brew server exclusively. Nor was she "permitted" to use an unsecured server stored in her house for classified e-mails (or ones that contained classified material). And she can whine about "marked classified" all she wants. As Secretary of State, she was expected to use judgement about what could be transmitted without encryption and what could not. She failed in that as well.

And this scandal is about more than a record-keeping snafu. She did not subsequently turn over e-mails to the State Department as alleged, instead she turned over 50,000 pages of printed e-mails - after editing those e-mails - and erased the server immediately afterward.

Don't forget that she also set up accounts for her underlings on her unsecured home brew server. That way, when she sent them an e-mail, it wasn't preserved in a State Department archive.

She didn't just use a private server, she actively bypassed the official encryption and record-keeping mechanisms that she was by law required to follow.

That's not a simple record-keeping snafu, that's a crime.

She's the top dog in the State Dept. and is responsible for ultimately deciding what is/is not classified.

That's true, so far as it goes.

What it doesn't cover is such material provided by other agencies: CIA, NSA, NRO and the like. They get to make that evaluation, and State can't over rule them after the fact.

What Josh doesn't understand - or chooses not to understand - is that merely having that information in an unsecured location is of and by itself a felony. No criminal intent required. She was briefed on the proper ways to handle such information in the first few days. She can not claim ignorance.

She was also required to surrender any such material within 30 days of leaving State.

Had Josh handled such material in such a cavalier manner, he would have been stripped of his clearances, fired from his job, and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Well the dead in Chicago and other major cities,will vote for her. Also the illegals.

I guess this is the election where we get to find out if corruption in a few key swing states is enough to win an election.

It may be, and and may not. For good or ill, Trump has a lot of name recognition. In my view, he gets 60 percent of the low information voters that bother to show up at the polls, right off the bat, for many of the same reasons that Obama got their vote.

While I don't agree with a lot of what he has said, I am certainly admiring Trump's ability to "punch back twice as hard"

Mitt Romey was a nice guy. That didn't work. So now, we get Trump.

I personally think Hillary is most likely an alcoholic coke head based on what more than one of Bill's mistresses has reported second hand.

And I am wondering with the email and other problems, if she even makes it into the general election.

Judicial Watch: New Clinton Emails Reveal Clinton Knew about Security Risk of Private Blackberry, Avoided Use of Secure Phone

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-clinton-knew-about-security-risk-of-private-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/

Reason's Suderman:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/28/hillary-clintons-use-of-a-private-email

When news about her email first broke, Clinton insisted that there was no classified material at all on her private server. But there’s no question at this point that an awful lot of classified material passed through her system. More than 2,000 of the emails she eventually handed over to the State Department had some classified information, and 22 of the emails were deemed so sensitive that they weren’t released at all, even in redacted form. These were not some run of the mill, low-level classifications.

...Even if you don’t think that Clinton’s email setup was wrong, it’s clear at this point that it was unusual and represented a bending, at least, if not a breaking of the requirements for government officials. It’s the sort of thing that should provoke questions and investigations.

But when called on it, she responded with dissembling and misleading statements, and by praising herself for taking only the most minimally required steps to comply with oversight. This may be the most important revelation from the entire episode: Not only was Clinton willing to ignore the rules—the same rules that she expected others to follow—in setting up her homebrew email server, she’s proven unable or unwilling to fully and truthfully account for her actions in the aftermath. It’s almost as if Clinton doesn’t want people to trust her. If that’s the intended effect, well, she’s been pretty successful so far.

Even if Clinton didn’t break the law, she certainly showed tremendously poor judgment in choosing to use a personal Blackberry connected to a privately run email server—housed at her residence in New York state—for her State Department business.

Although she didn’t use the BlackBerry inside the secure space surrounding her State Department office, she traveled with it, despite blatant warnings about the risks of doing so. According to the Post, State Department security officials put together a memo warning her of the security risks of using an unsecured BlackBerry, following a speech by counterintelligence official Joel Brenner that basically said that government BlackBerrys had been hacked during the Beijing Olympics. Shortly after the memo was discussed with Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, Clinton took an extended overseas trip and, of course, brought her BlackBerry along. In other words, she ignored clear and direct warnings about the risks that her actions posed.

I wonder if her near-total reliance on that specific Blackberry and recent falling episodes aren't an indication that she is, due to mental deterioration, unable to learn a new system and needs the unsecured Blackberry because it's all she knows and, at this point, she is unable to learn a new OS.

Maybe the personal e-mail server was set up to hide from FOIA requests any signs of her incapacity coming through in her e-mails, instead of being set up to shield nefarious activities.

I don't know if a secured Blackberry is operated much differently than an unsecured one. If their user interfaces are the same, then that shoots holes in that theory.

"Permitted" - this is the wife of the man who debated the meaning of the word "is". She set State Dept. policy, so she permitted herself to run the server. But that's just the smallest bit of it.

The main issue is that she blatantly violated the laws for handling classified information. I used to hold a clearance; I assure you that anyone else would long since be in jail.

Classified information does not have to be marked as classified to be classified. Whenever your write about a classified topic, you create a new document. That document is classified, even if you haven't marked it yet. It's the content that makes a document classified, not the fact of a stupid marking.

This is a Nixonian level of "the law doesn't apply to me." If Hillary is elected, it's just a matter of time before we hear her saying that whatever crime she has commited is "not illegal when the President does it."

Trump will do fine as president. His idea of winning isn't being right and having everyone accede to his demands. It's making a deal -- within the party, across party lines, whatever. He's the only hope we have of getting anything done without the kind of gridlock we've seen for the past eight years. (And that hasn't all been due to Republicans. Obama's idea of negotiating since he was sworn in has been "I won the election, so I have a mandate, so do what I say.")

I would describe this as all fucked up:

> His idea of winning isn't being
> right and having everyone accede
> to his demands. It's making a
> deal -- within the party, across
> party lines, whatever.

He's a spectacularly lousy maker of deals. He's worth a fraction of what his inheritance would have brought had he simply invested in index funds... Instead, he's collapsed business after business, declared bankruptcy, and most recently made a living by renting his TV-game-show-host identity to other people's shady ventures, at least until the shit goes down in court.

At no time do I want someone elected by their powers of "whatever." Those party lines are there for a reason...

...One would think.—

> He's the only hope we have of

There's no context in our Newtonian cosmos for which those seven words can be sustained by a meaningful conclusion. None. (Besides, who you callin' "we"?) Certainly not this one:

> getting anything done without
> the kind of gridlock we've seen
> for the past eight years.

For Christ's sake, child... Trillions and trillions of dollars which do not in fact exist have been spent by a howlingly rapacious bipartisan machine. To describe this decade —or the ones before it, even— as "gridlock" is ludicrous on its face. The machine is running perfectly, given the purposes of its operators.




Trump is an 8th-grade asshole. I've yet to meet any of his supporters who shouldn't be similarly described.

Trump is an 8th-grade asshole. I've yet to meet any of his supporters who shouldn't be similarly described.

Regardless, he's never endangered national security and broken laws warranting scores of years in federal lock up.

Everybody sucks. I already have my sign. I'm gonna put it out sometime in August or September. I'm gonna vote, but i'm throwing it away to Gary Johnson or someone else if they pop up between now and then. At least I can live with myself that way.

http://16sucks.com/t/yard-sign

"I don't know if a secured Blackberry is operated much differently than an unsecured one. If their user interfaces are the same, then that shoots holes in that theory."

The NSA has secured Blackberries. They aren't very different from the regular ones. The reason Hillary didn't want one is because their connectivity is severely restricted and everything done with them is logged. Hillary wanted a private network where she could bring in all of her cronies and work shady side deals.

Someone with admin access inside of SIPRNET was feeding her server classified information from that network -- there is no way a regular user could have done that. Who was that person? Can they be found? Are they still there? Are they still alive?

And regarding Trump: I look at it this way. If he wins, the entire media and Washington establishment will be watching him like hawks. If he does anything that's the slightest bit corrupt, it will be above the fold in the NYT in five minutes. If Hillary wins, then it's "my tribe, right or wrong". She'll have a free hand and plenty of people to give her cover. And that multi-million dollar Clinton Foundation slush fund. It will be a political machine that will make Tammany Hall, Lester Maddux, and the Daleys look small time.

How you know you're doing something right: Crid has a meltdown over one of your comments. QED.

I don't think you know what QED means.

> If he does anything that's the slightest
> bit corrupt, it will be above the fold
> in the NYT in five minutes.

His entire life, his entire business career, and certainly his entire campaign are all nothing but a series of petty and grand corruptions. To the people who are going vote for him, his fellow 8th-graders, these things have no weight. And they certainly aren't too concerned about the New York Times.

Here's an irony: The regulatory state, and the IRS in particular, have spun out of control. Their cancerous operations are unchecked by the law of the land and by the People. Yet none of these agencies —who've struggled so mightily to convince us that we rely upon their efficacy— can figure out a way to stop this disruptive candidacy, despite Trump's lifetime of broken contracts and legal retribution.

His entire life, his entire business career, and certainly his entire campaign are all nothing but a series of petty and grand corruptions.

And this is different from Clinton how? Aside from breaking federal espionage laws of course.

Trump's bombast and the resulting backlash have made it seem as if this election is a referendum on Trump, a Hobson's choice between Trump and not-Trump. Clinton has become simply a blank slate not-Trump.

Her venality in all political offices she's held deserve the same level of contempt that the not-Trump crowd has mustered against him. Her history of ineptitude and shady deals bodes no better for the country than his history of inept business dealings and ego-driven ventures.

This election is a Morton's Fork of two bad options. The question is no longer to choose the best candidate, but to minimize the resulting damage.

If the Republicans were firm in their hold on Congress, one could choose Clinton with a Republican Congress as a backstop. However, the Republicans could lose Congress and the prospect of a Democratic-dominated Congress with a president who knows how to use that advantage (unlike the current president who squandered the advantage when he had it), is unsettling.

Choosing Trump gives us a president who will not have the automatic support of either party in Congress, the same disadvantage any Libertarian or third-party president would have. And that leads an executive to try and go it alone, to continued executive over-reach and a president who acts like king, ruling through executive fiat and agency regulation.

Paul Ryan seems to be trying to avoid isolating Trump with his tentative outreach to him, but I don't think Trump is smart enough to understand that and at least visit the reservation.

We need gridlock. It's the only thing that keeps one party from dominating the government. It's the only thing that keeps the government under control.

This election, however it turns out, is going to result in a level of societal unrest, and perhaps even violence, not seen since the '60s and '70s. Either way, we're screwed.

Sadly, Clinton may be the best bet to tamp down inevitable social unrest resulting from the election. In the event of her election, Republican stalwarts may take to the hills with guns and ammo, but they won't generally riot in the streets. In the event of a Trump election, on the other hand, BLM and other "progressive" groups will make the OJ verdict riots and Ferguson riots look like a Boy Scout jamboree.

Frankly I'm more interested in how the Clinton Foundation received millions (perhaps tens of millions) of dollars from Saudi Arabia while she was SoS.

> Her venality in all political offices
> she's held deserve the same level of
> contempt that the not-Trump crowd has
> mustered against him.

☑ Affirmed.

But not just the political offices.

But no, I don't think Hillary is the "best bet" in any context. Our nation is spazzing, and our government is an enormous source of our financial decline and instability, expressing the worst of our nature in almost all contexts. "Social unrest," while unpleasant and perhaps unpredictably tragic, may not be an inappropriate response.

You'll have noticed that Trump supporters, the people whose personal development appears (to us) to have stopped in the 8th grade, don't care what's said about him, what's proven, or even what he says. I think this is their way of saying they no longer trust any conventional political systems to get their needs met. If that is what they're saying, I believe them: They mean it. And there's little reason they should offer such trust. Even annoying people deserve good treatment from government servants...

...And government benefactors, such as wordy, air-conditioned, tenured academics. But they're not getting it. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more despicable sentiment expressed in the NY Times than in this comment. It's got three thumbs up, too. Do you suppose the software even permits thumbs down? Would you be surprised if it didn't?

My present plan is to vote for Sanders, earnestly if not eagerly. Of course he's personally corrupt, and and his policies will sink the American project, but so far as I can tell he's not as naked and shameless in his criminality as is Hillary. The collapse of American comity will be gentler and perhaps quicker under Sanders than under any other candidate.

Then we can start to rebuild. Your great grand-children might turn out okay.

Via Cosh

Crid, I'm reminded of the 19th-century sentiment, often expressed in Europe, that there was something in the air or water of the North American continent that made Americans dumber than Europeans.

MarketWatch postulates that it may Hillary and the Democrats on the verge of unraveling, not the Republicans.

Now, a couple weeks later, the FBI claims to have:

--At least one e-mail on that server contained fresh information from one of our spies, which could identify the source and get him killed.

--Testimony from Clinton's tech support person, who set up that server. He says she required it to give her access to e-mail WITHOUT EVEN ENTERING A PASSWORD. She not only would not bother to learn the approved systems for classified e-mail and other documents, but she was simply TOO LAZY to work with any security at all.

--An e-mail from Clinton instructing her aides to REMOVE THE CLASSIFIED MARKINGS from documents and send them to her private e-mail server. This in itself should put her in Leavenworth for a decade.

For comparison, there's a sailor that took a few photos of the engine room of his submarine. It's at the lowest level of classification (confidential). He did not give the photos to anyone, or put them on an unsecured server that would be a prime target for any foreign intelligence agency that found out about it. He will probably be sentenced to 5 or 6 years.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/mishandling-classified-information-leads-to-jail-time-if-your-name-is-not-clinton/

It's utterly disgusting that Sandy Berger (one of Bill Clinton's aides back when he was President) didn't go to prison for stuffing classified documents in his pants. But Hillary went far beyond this. Anyone who can support her for commander-in-chief - or support the "Justice" department that is sending Kristian Saucier to prison but dragging their feet on indicting Clinton - is either an utter fool or an enemy of the USA.