trump is serious!!!!!

[Joe Guy]

Your 'Be a Good Republican and Vote for Hillary' bumper sticker is in the mail....

[Burning Petard]

Hillary and her private e-mail server seems to me to be just like one who drives home from a late nite shift at 2am, on a deserted hiway. Pulls up at an intersection with a blinking red light in all four directions, sees no traffic anywhere and rolls through it.

Yes, the driver violated the traffic law. But at what risk to any one?

As for Hillary and her official and personal emails on the private server--clear violation of the laws and regulations, but to what harm? NONE! Yes, none, were hacked.

Can the official government agencies say the same?

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

but to what harm? NONE!

And what "harm" was caused by John Deutsch having classified documents on his home computer, or Sandy Berger taking a classified document home with him in his socks, or David Petraeus sharing some classified information with his mistress?

As far as we know, no "harm" (in national security terms) was caused in any of those cases...

But all three of those men were indicted for violating the law, ("harm" is not the legal standard; "negligent handling" of classified information is the standard) and one avoided prison by benefit of a Presidential Pardon, and the other two took plea deals....

And what all three of them did sure looks like small potatoes compared to the systematic "negligent handling" of classified information that Her Royal Clintoness engaged in...

As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA:

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.

The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received.

The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.

“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA.[gee, that's a shockaroo...]
According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.

“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”

Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.

“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August.

Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws.

In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.

It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes.

Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA.

Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows.

Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address.

[Lord Jim]

I'm in a very awkward position here...

On the one hand, looking at what she did, and looking at the law, and looking at how the law has been applied in other cases, I'm completely convinced that she absolutely deserves to be indicted....

But on the other hand, I am sincerely hoping that doesn't happen, because that would play into the hands of Donald Trump...

and Donald Trump being elected President (or Hillary being replaced with another Democratic nominee who would be weaker on National Defense, even if they defeated Trump) represent far worse outcomes looking at the big picture, than giving Hillary a pass for her arrogant, criminally negligent behavior with her emails...

So my position basically is:

"Even though Hillary deserves to be indicted, it's in the best interest of the country that she not be"...

And reaching that conclusion makes me want to take a long hot shower....

[MajGenl.Meade]

[wesw]

well, mr trump, I am impressed with your self control in not firing all of your guns at once.

your ability to hold certain cards, even when they beg to be played, impresses me.

your long delayed play to the black community, your delaying of your holding up of dr king in opposition to Sharpton and farakan, is an example of utmost confidence and control.

well held, and hopefully it will be well played at the proper time. I stand corrected.

I will recommend that you play a certain card now. I strongly recommend this play.

Jeffrey Epstein must be layed on the table.

the game of hardball has begun, and she just hit you hard in the first inning.

"i ve got two words for you folks..., Jeffrey Epstein....."

"yeah, you kids just google it, that s all. "

"you guys google , Jeffrey Epstein and see what he is in jail for..."

"you google orgy island and see how many trips bill Clinton took on orgy airlines...., "

"he should ve flown Trump...."

"you guys and gals just google it..., I don t even want to talk about it myself. it s disgusting, just disgusting...."

"...and you know that the Nation of Islam killed Malcolm, right? you know that, right"?

[wesw]

"...and why did bill Clinton give paula jones $800,000.00 ? "

" I don t know, I m curious...., maye we ll ask him..."

" so , bill, why? why all the money for paula jones?"

[RayThom]

I'm in very awkward position here... So my position basically is:
"Even though Hillary deserves to be indicted, it's in the best interest of the country that she not be"...
And reaching that conclusion makes me want to take a long hot shower...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15326&hilit=january ... 40#p195579

[wesw]

watching random people with trump apparel on being pursued by packs of rioters live on MSNBC.

they are being kicked punched hit with bottles and eggs and chased without mercy.

many Mexican flags.

few police.

anarchy reigns.

time to shoot some motherfuckers in self defense.

[wesw]

now the cops are watching trump supporters getting gang banged.

fuck the po po too, at least in CA

[Bicycle Bill]

There is a HYUUUGE difference between "Jeffrey Epstein must be layed on the table" and "Jeffrey Epstein must be laid on the table".  I suggest you work on your rudimentary command of the English language.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

Is there any corroboration that Clinton visited the island even once?

Something besides the unsworn, unsubstantiated natterings of a nutbar who claims she fucked Prince Andrew.

Something like a flight manifest. One problem with that. The oft repeated and never documented claims that Clinton frequently rode on Epstein's jet to his island were obviously made by someone who never bothered to open an atlas. There has never been a 727 flown to that island, because it doesn't have a runway, only a helipad.

Of course, those making the allegation could have been using shorthand - that the jet was flown to Charlotte Amalie where Epstein's guests, including Clinton, would have got on a helicopter to jump to the island.

Except they don't say that. They claim there are flight manifests for Epstein's plane that show Clinton flying to Epstein's island. Has anyone seen said manifests? I have seen one, obtained by Judicial Watch demanding that the Secret Service disclose the cost of Clinton's protection when he visited the island.

Two problems with that. One, they know the Secret Service will NEVER release details about their operations regarding a protectee. So the information request was filed in order to be able to accuse the government is hiding something.

Two, the manifest they proffer as a smoking gun lists Clinton as a passenger on one flight. They do their best to obscure the destination, but it is clear from the sequence of flights that he flew from Miami to Westchester County Airport. And the claim that Virginia Roberts sat beside him on this flight? Hmmm, doesn't seem to be
"VR" among the initials in the manifest:


Oh yeah, and why won't this be an issue in the campaign?

Aside from the fact that all of the idiots in the right-wing blogosphere who keep repeating the same allegations over and over again haven't yet figured out that they have been quoting each other for so long that they failed to notice anyone putting out any proof.

Because Trump had a closer relationship with Epstein than Clinton ever did. He was even quoted praising Epstein and extolling their relationship:

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,'' Trump told New York magazine in a 2002 profile of Epstein written three years before Epstein began to be investigated. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

How's that for an inconvenient truth?

But the country has no lack of fools that will swallow it wholesale because they want to believe it is true.

"...and why did bill Clinton give paula jones $800,000.00 ? "

" I don t know, I m curious...., maye we ll ask him..."

" so , bill, why? why all the money for paula jones?"

He settled for the same reason a lot of people settle, because the legal costs of an appeal of the dismissal, even if unsuccessful, could have easily topped that. Jones's legal bills were running over a million, most of that settlement went to the lawyers*. If her legal costs were that high, Clinton's were probably far more, and he could have spent as much again in appeals courts


*Her original lawyers quit when she rejected a $1 million settlement offer. She sent her new lawyers into fits by publicly demanding $2 million to settle. She got far less than she would have if she had accepted the offer that came before her suit was dismissed. She overplayed her hand and it cost her. She comes across as incredibly bitter that she was not able to destroy the Clintons' lives. "How dare he show his face as if nothing happened," she whines. She believed that the lawsuit would bring her vindication, but she never got the admissions or apologies she sued to get. Some lawyers got rich, though.

[Lord Jim]

He settled for the same reason a lot of people settle, ...

Well, let's not forget that Paula Jones was able to accurately describe "distinguishing characteristics on the President's penis" (okay, on second thought maybe we should try to forget that) and that in addition to the settlement there was also this:

On April 12, 1999, Wright found Clinton in contempt of court for "intentionally false" testimony in Jones v. Clinton, fined him $90,000, and referred the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court's Committee on Professional Conduct, as Clinton still possessed a law license in Arkansas.[1]

The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

This is the first time I've heard the Jeff Epstein accusation ...(I guess I'm not spending enough time on right-wing blogs)

I absolutely agree that the evidence strongly suggests that Bill Clinton is a serial sex predator, and I also find Hillary's attempts to smear his accusers (even as recently as this past December) while at the same time piously intoning about how "women should always be believed" regarding sexual assault accusations, is both appalling and shamelessly hypocritical....

And all of those things would probably matter to me, were it not for the fact that the alternative to Hillary is a certifiable lunatic....

The opponent being a certifiable lunatic thing tends to more than balance out the scales....

ETA:

all of the idiots in the right-wing blogosphere who keep repeating the same allegations over and over again haven't yet figured out that they have been quoting each other for so long that they failed to notice anyone putting out any proof.

That's not just a feature of "right-wing" blogs...

I remember a few years ago trying to track down one of Steve's happy daffty conspiracy theories (this was one where Donald Rumsfeld supposedly met with some secret group to tell them that it was US policy to deliberately allow terrorist attacks to take place on American soil rather than thwarting them)

He argued that there "must" be truth to the story since there were so many "sources" talking about it...

But when I actually tracked it down, imagine my surprise when I discovered that it was just a bunch of conspiracy blogs all engaging in a cyber circle jerk, repeating the same groundless story cooked up by one of them, with no reputable original source...

I pointed out to Steve that the quantity of websites repeating something is not a standard for truth...

I gave the example that just because there are hundreds of websites selling penis enlarging pills doesn't mean that any of them actually work....

[oldr_n_wsr]

there are hundreds of websites selling penis enlarging pills doesn't mean that any of them actually work....

You mean I should cancel my order?!?!?

[Lord Jim]

I see Paul Ryan finally "endorsed" Trumpty yesterday...(though he didn't use the word "endorsement" he just said he would vote for him...

Poor Paul looked and sounded about as enthusiastic and happy as he would if he were announcing that he had an inoperable brain tumor...

Or if he were in a hostage video with somebody in a ski mask standing off camera pointing a machine gun at him...

I'm not going to rag on Ryan too much about this, as the Republican Speaker of The House, and the guy who's going to chair the convention where this train wreck nomination is going to be ratified, he really didn't have a choice other than to make a public expression of support for the Presidential nominee of his party...

I don't know what "commitments" Paul thinks he got from the Trump-thing but presumably they didn't include a promise to stop behaving like a complete off the hook frothing at the mouth a-hole, because yesterday Drumpf rose to the bait like a trained seal beautifully proving Hillary's point about his total lack of acceptable temperament for the Presidency...

[rubato]

Ryan and Mitch McConnell have managed to prove once again that they really will stoop to anything.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

By the way, this:

you guys google , Jeffrey Epstein and see what he is in jail for

is a lie.

[MajGenl.Meade]

".... see what he WAS in jail for" would be accurate. Although of course it would be... what's that word? Irrelevant, that's it

[Bicycle Bill]

Poor Paul looked and sounded about as enthusiastic and happy as he would if he were announcing that he had an inoperable brain tumor...

Or if he were in a hostage video with somebody in a ski mask standing off camera pointing a machine gun at him...

That's probably closer to the reality of it than you can imagine, LJ.  As I recall, Ryan didn't really want to be Speaker of the House in the first place but took it out of a sense of duty more than anything.  And then, as he watches Republican voters turn something like Trump into a major contender, to realize that these members of his party have lost their senses as well ...

I'm not going to rag on Ryan too much about this, as the Republican Speaker of The House, and the guy who's going to chair the convention where this train wreck nomination is going to be ratified, he really didn't have a choice other than to make a public expression of support for the Presidential nominee of his party...

I don't know what "commitments" Paul thinks he got from the Trump-thing but presumably they didn't include a promise to stop behaving like a complete off the hook frothing at the mouth a-hole, because yesterday Drumpf rose to the bait like a trained seal beautifully proving Hillary's point about his total lack of acceptable temperament for the Presidency...

Ryan's smart enough to know that any agreement with The Donald isn't worth the paper it might have been written on.  Probably the only commitment he got is that Trump wouldn't actively bad-mouth him if he (Ryan) toed the mark in the name of 'party unity'; and he knows too that this will go out the window if the Trumpster deems it necessary sometime between now and November.

-"BB"-

[Joe Guy]

there are hundreds of websites selling penis enlarging pills doesn't mean that any of them actually work....

You mean I should cancel my order?!?!?

Yes. You're already a big enough dick...