No charges for Hillary in email probe...time to start a new investigation

[SGOS]

I'm not going to bother looking for the link now, but I noticed one headline this morning along the lines of "How the GOP Will Keep the Hillary Email Scandal Alive!"  Not that this should astound anyone.  I have no doubt that they will, although I didn't bother to read the article. 

I just think the Media is funny.  The day before, the headlines (paraphrased) were "Hillary Email Scandal Over!"  The following day it's, "Oops!  Not if We Can Help It!"  There's still money to be made, character to assassinate, agendas to be advanced using any means possible, and new ways to rewrite the same old articles over and over.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Right talks about "The Liberal Media" as if billionaires don't own all of it.

[SGOS]

The liberal media meme is one of the most deluded contrivances the right wing ever devised.  Stephen Colbert nailed it with his quip about "reality having a liberal bias."  The Right whined about it for years.  And when they were able to effect the change they longed for, what did they come up with?  Rush Limbaugh, followed by a host of Limbaugh imitators, and the rest of the "fair and balanced" spokesmen for the lunatic fringe.  The right is very good at what they do, because they aren't afraid to whine or lie or say absurd things to get what they want, and there is a large frightened brain dead population to appeal to.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The liberal media meme is one of the most deluded contrivances the right wing ever devised.  Stephen Colbert nailed it with his quip about "reality having a liberal bias."  The Right whined about it for years.  And when they were able to effect the change they longed for, what did they come up with?  Rush Limbaugh, followed by a host of Limbaugh imitators, and the rest of the "fair and balanced" spokesmen for the lunatic fringe.  The right is very good at what they do, because they aren't afraid to whine or lie or say absurd things to get what they want, and there is a large frightened brain dead population to appeal to.

They get really sullen when I point out that the second largest stock holder in Faux News is a Saudi Prince. And as for the largest stock holder...

[stromboli]

6 Corporations own nearly all of it.

[widdershins]

About the age excuse...

Just a month before the email issue arose, in November 2010, Abedin and Clinton discussed that department employees were not receiving emails sent by then-secretary, the newly-released emails indicate.

“We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam,” Abedin wrote to Clinton on November 13, 2010.

In response, the secretary wrote: “Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/347861-clinton-server-software-security/

If the Clinton email scandal was not something that you ever cared about and you thought it was not important enough to really look into, I get that, but if that's the case, why would you then try to put up a defense for Hillary when you haven't even taken fifteen minutes to find out the facts?

Look where the outrage came from.  How many Benghazi investigations were started before the email thing came up?  How many different birth certificates did Obama have to produce?  You can only scream "The sky is falling!" so many times before I just stop looking up.  When it comes from the right I do and will continue to simply assume it's hysterical bullshit about nothing until it is proved to be otherwise and "No charges" is a far cry from "proved to be otherwise".  It's the opposite, actually.  This is the same reason I just assume someone is an idiot when they try to present me with "evidence" of alien visitation or Bigfoot and why my eyes glaze over whenever someone talks about crop circles or 9/11 excitedly.

Even what you just posted is far from the damning "evidence" you seem to believe it to be.  "We should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam."  Yeah?  So?  "We should talk", not "Do you realize what you're doing!!??".  Not, "Think of the security risk!!!".  And what do they need to "talk about" without any hint of urgency?  SPAMMING!  Not security concerns, not state secrets, not hacking, just emails getting through.  And the "response"?  She was concerned about the security of her personal emails.  Why, just imagine the gall of one of the biggest political targets in America wanting to make sure that her personal communications, where she might speak like a human being instead of a politician, might fall into the hands of the opposition.  What was she thinking?  That if any of her personal stuff got released and wasn't 100% politically filtered the Republican party might blow it out of proportion and make something out of nothing?  No!  They would never do such a low-down, underhanded thing!  They have scruples.  Wait, is this real life or a movie from the 1950s?  Because that's the Leave it to Beaver reality I was just talking about there.

So, show me some intent.  Show me that she knew AND UNDERSTOOD that it was a security risk and just didn't care.  Show me blatant disregard for government secrets instead of just an aging person who doesn't know the difference between a "computer" and a "monitor", a "tower" and a "hard drive", a "router" and a "modem".  Yes, the RESULTS could have been bad (far from the catastrophe Clinton haters are making it out to be, but bad).  But there was no intent there.  There was no disregard.  There was no understanding.  And, most importantly, there is no actual EVIDENCE that it was bad, just "could have been".  How do I know that without delving through Faux News for my "facts" on how evil Hillary Clinton is?  If it existed half the people here and the ENTIRE Republican party would have flaunted it all over the headlines already.  If there was anything to this I am 100% certain, WITHOUT DOUBT, that information would simply come to me, whether I want it or not.  It would be the subject of many a headline and multiple threads here.  If there was any actual evidence of wrongdoing it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me not to find out without moving to a remote mountaintop cabin.  Even then I might have to kill myself to keep from finding out.

So, you suggesting that I can't have an opinion if I haven't dug deeply into it, all I hear is Randy Carson telling me that I can't dismiss the Miracle and Fatima if I haven't read this book or that.  Yes, I can, and I will, and I do.  As with any subject which gets people worked up, any actual facts tend to surface in an unavoidable way, yet you're relegated to quoting conversations about avoiding being blocked by spam blockers.  A biased opinion does not sway me and, frankly, doesn't even merit my consideration.  People hate Hillary.  I get it.   There's a lot there to rub people the wrong way.

I'm sorry, but I don't think she's any more crooked than any other politician.  Do I think she's genuine?  No more than any other politician and less than many.  Bernie was the only one in recent memory that I would have considered might POSSIBLY be genuine.  Before that, Obama and Biden, before taking office...maybe....somewhat.  Do I think she's beholden to corporations?  Aren't we all, politicians doubly so?  Do I think she'll always do what's right for the country instead of herself?  Of course not!  She's a politician!  Do I think she vamped out and personally killed those people in Benghazi then used the terrorist thing to cover it up?  Probably not, but it'll probably be the lead story on Faux News tomorrow and the reason for the millionth Benghazi investigation.  Do I think she intentionally endangered national security so she could...what?  Claim she had her own server as a status symbol?  Illegally delete emails from her political account to erase records of criminal activity instead of just using an anonymous fucking Gmail account for her criminal enterprise?  What, exactly, is the nefarious thing she was trying to do here?  Was she smuggling coke in her emails and didn't want the government "cocaine in emails detection system" to pick it up?  Is she a criminal mastermind who, despite being aware of the Patriot Act, used her email to run her vast criminal empire?  Did she go to China and, instead of the "Oops!  I dropped my pen!" maneuver pulling the, "Oops!  I got a classified email from the President on my server which is completely naked of any kind of security measures!" maneuver?  What, exactly, was the criminal intent here?  Because everyone keeps trying to make it into this big thing where she is GUILTY...of...um...something...  Guilty of WHAT?  Being an idiot?  Have you ever checked out "the Internet"?  It's actually not as uncommon as you might think.

[Flanker1Six]

6 Corporations own nearly all of it.

Thanks!  Now I am paranoid!   

[Flanker1Six]

Silly conspiracy theorist.

Nah, but really, it looks like we have several zombies in this thread who seem to be no different from the Trump zombies who think he can do no wrong. Hillary tried to wipe her server clean and was called extremely careless by the FBI, which to me is enough to disqualify her from the conversation of being President, but the Hillarybots see her being called extremely careless and take that as a win for her, and basically say that she never should have been investigated, and make up lies about her just being an old lady who didn't know any better, even though she was told that she should be using the government email and she said screw that, I'm doing things my way. You even have people in here defending  Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch. Complete zombies just like the Trump supporters.

Spot on.  When you do it; you're dumping............................when I do it; I'm "delegating".   

[FaithIsFilth]

So Widdershins, you admit that you don't have time for stories that you consider to be "biased" before you even look into them, but you put forth a specific defense for Hillary when you admit that you don't even know what's going on? Look, I'm not telling you not to post what you want to post, when you want to post it. I'm the last person that would do that. I'm simply saying that it's not a good look for the Hillary supporters when they make specific arguments for her that can be disproven by anyone who's done just a tiny bit of research on the email scandal. I'm guilty of being lazy at times myself and not doing the proper research before I make a post, but when I do that and someone points it out, I usually own up to my error/ laziness rather than trying to defend it and telling the person not to call me out for not knowing the facts.

The only reason Hillary was not indicted was because she didn't show signs of intentional disloyalty to the United States and because she didn't intentionally help the enemy by sacrificing security, which is a ridiculously stupid standard to have to meet. Hillary would pretty much have to be a spy to meet that unreasonable standard. The results of the investigation also showed that Hillary has been lying through her teeth about everything concerning the email scandal for the past year.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that's the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224

[PickelledEggs]

Let's just vote Trump. Okay? Okay.

[FaithIsFilth]

If you want to convince the Bernie supporters to vote Clinton, it's best that the arguments used to persuade them are not ones that are going to just completely insult their intelligence. Insulting the intelligence of people who are hesitant to vote for Clinton is not a good strategy for keeping Trump out of office. Instead, you might want to try a more honest approach. Something like, "Yeah, Hillary was negligent here and she f'd up, but she has probably learned her lesson so you should be willing to look past that because Trump is the more frightening possibility." If I see that type of response, I can at least respect that the person is not trying to insult my intelligence/ treat me like a child who will believe anything.

[Hydra009]

Let's just vote Trump. Okay? Okay.

This whole election is shaping into the biggest trainwreck the US has ever known.  Let's just call off the election and appoint Obama's dog to the presidency for 4 years.  That seems like a fair compromise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This whole election is shaping into the biggest trainwreck the US has ever known.  Let's just call off the election and appoint Obama's dog to the presidency for 4 years.  That seems like a fair compromise.

What did the dog do to make you hate him so much?

[Jannabear]

She was found to have sent emails. The horror! What a criminal! What a desperado! Better lock me up, too... I have email accounts.

You literally dont know anything about this...
Literally do a google search before you post.

[Jannabear]

The hillary clinton dick sucking contest here is ridiculous.