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

[drunkenshoe]

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.

[drunkenshoe]

[widdershins]

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?

Do you feel the need to investigate every supernatural claim presented to you?  Do you feel the need to read every book Randy wants you to read?  If I claimed some vast conspiracy but offered NO compelling reason to believe it, no actual evidence, would you feel the need to look into every detail of what I claimed?  Neither do I.

I have read a few stories.  I have read the comments here.  I have enough information to form an opinion.  And what is this "information" that makes me able to form an opinion?  Those who think something nefarious is going on are INCREDIBLY sparse on the details of exactly what that "nefarious thing" might be.  Those who think something is nefarious is going on tend to be people who already hated Hillary Clinton before the email scandal.  Those who think something nefarious is going on never seem to give any actual evidence of this nefarious activity.  Instead what they say sounds more like an argument against evolution from a Jehovah's Witness.  "Don't you think that's a little strange?" and "That's a pretty big coincidence!"

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.

We don't "know" each other, but I very much respect you.  That you were suggesting I shut the hell up never crossed my mind.

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.

Why the hell does everyone think I'm a "Hillary supporter"?  I don't hate her, but my interest is in the truth, not some out of touch career politician who couldn't find the truth with sodium thiopental.  I am obsessive about "truth".  I DO hate Donald Trump, but if I catch you saying something bad about him that I don't think is true I will defend his racist ass too. 

And I'm unclear about what specific argument I made which is easily disproved.  I assume that's something you or someone else has pointed out to me and I missed it.  As I said, I am obsessive about "truth".  If I have said something untrue, believe me, I want to know about it more than you do.  As I said, I respect you and I have no reason to doubt that you at least believe that I said something untrue.  So either I need to clear something up or I have something to learn.  Please let me know what that thing is, in all sincerity.

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.

That is incorrect.  I read an article just yesterday or the day before where someone compared what she did to someone (I forget who) who did intentionally release classified information.  He released it, not to our enemies, but to, I believe, his publicists turned lover.  And this is exactly why I simply assume you have nothing factual to say.  This is a subconscious attempt at oversimplification by making the matter black and white and eliminating all shades of gray.  In this way the ONLY way it could have been worse than what it was is if she were a traitor.  This is simply bullshit.

You also call the standard unreasonable, but don't point out that is your untrained opinion.  As I have already stated, intent is a VERY big part of our law.  Intent can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter.  It can mean the difference between misdemeanor and felony.  And it CAN mean the difference between charges and no charges.  Destroying a mailbox is a federal offense.  If you use a baseball bat, you go to jail.  If you lose control of your car, you aren't charged.  Intent plays a HUGE and INTEGRAL role in our legal system.  Just because it doesn't ALWAYS play a roll (it doesn't matter if you thought she was 18, usually) doesn't mean that it NEVER plays a roll.

And just that little bit right there shows a HUGE bias on your part.  Why would I bother looking into your claims after that?  Seriously, this is no different to me than Randy Carson constantly telling me that I needed to read this book or that book because if I didn't look into his dumbass claims that magic was real I wasn't qualified to say it wasn't.  The argument is the EXACT SAME.  I can see the extreme bias you have in your wording.  If you had some actual evidence we both know damned well you would have presented it by now.  You haven't because you can't because there is none.  It is valid for me to come to that conclusion based on what you and other "String her up!" proponents are saying without having to research your every factless claim.

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.

Okay.  I am not aware what you are talking about.  Can you give some evidence for this?  And I DO mean actual "lies" which were "proved", not something which could have been "mistaken" or something she "misunderstood" or something you "believe" to have been a lie.  And when you're done with that, are these lies "chargeable" offenses?  Was she proved to have lied under oath?  And when you're done with THAT, is it in any way unusual for a powerful person to get more leeway than you and I would in such a situation?  Does it NEVER happen in politics?

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
[/quote]
Okay.  And what is that saying to you?  Why did you feel it was important to quote that to me?  What I read is that she "should have" known better.  Not that she did and didn't care, but that she "should have".  He's calling her an idiot.  And perhaps she is.  But what he's not saying is that she knew better and did it anyway.  What he's not saying is that she's guilty of being anything more than stupid.

“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

Again, "should have known", not "did know".  She was "careless".  She was "negligent".  These words certainly sound bad, but are they actually "criminal"?  Once again you're quoting things that "sound bad", but aren't really evidence of anything.  It just sounds really juicy, and you know she's vile, so THIS is your proof that she was criminal!  But the quote actually says that they found no evidence that she acted with the "necessary" criminal intent.  The FBI director is saying that criminal intent is "necessary" to bring criminal charges, people on the Internet are saying, "She is guilty because I hate her!"  Who the hell do you think I'm going to listen to?  WHY would I feel the need to look into this further?  And when would it stop?  When would you FINALLY feel that I knew enough about this to form an opinion?  Because obviously I haven't been living under a rock.  I HAVE been exposed to at least some of the facts, and you have no idea how much of it I do or don't know.  All you know is that I said I didn't feel the need to research it intently.  So WHEN have I done enough research to make you happy?  You don't know how much I know, but you know I don't know enough.  That tells me that I will have done enough research to make YOU happy when I agree with you.  That's not how it works.

Look, the FBI director, who I'm going to assume knows a thing or two about the law, says that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case.  I just have this gut feeling that the dude knows what he's talking about.  He probably went to college and everything, I bet.  Then there's YOU quoting HIM to...what?  To prove that she should have been charged?  You're quoting the FBI director, who says she shouldn't be charged, to prove that she should be charged?  Do you think he just might not be saying what you think he's saying when you quote it from the reason he's not charging her?

I get it.  You guys hate Hillary.  Good for you.  Tell me about all the bad shit she's actually done and I'll chime in.  That bit about knowing what it's like to be flat broke because they almost had to sell one of their mansions to make the mortgage on the others, that pissed me the hell off.  In one of her debates with Obama she made me hate her by showing just how much a politician she was.  I have no love for the woman and, trust me, there's plenty there not to like for realsies.  But if you're just going to make shit up and pretend she's the devil who killed Jimmy Hoffa it's really your own damned fault when I disagree with you.  It's nothing I did wrong or failed to do, you're just spouting bullshit.  There is PLENTY of actually, factually REAL stuff to hate about her.  Start spouting that and I'll chime in.  But start pretending that you know more about the legality of what she did than the FBI director who actually investigated her and I'll keep dismissing your arguments.

[FaithIsFilth]

Do you feel the need to investigate every supernatural claim presented to you?  Do you feel the need to read every book Randy wants you to read?  If I claimed some vast conspiracy but offered NO compelling reason to believe it, no actual evidence, would you feel the need to look into every detail of what I claimed?  Neither do I.

I wouldn't say the possibility of ghosts existing is anywhere close to the possibility that a corrupt politician did something corrupt. Even her biggest supporters like MSNBC and CNN have been talking about how bad this looks for Hillary. You've had "liberals" on MSNBC calling Hillary's defense of the email scandal an embarrassment. This was NOT a witch hunt.

And I'm unclear about what specific argument I made which is easily disproved.  I assume that's something you or someone else has pointed out to me and I missed it.  As I said, I am obsessive about "truth".  If I have said something untrue, believe me, I want to know about it more than you do.  As I said, I respect you and I have no reason to doubt that you at least believe that I said something untrue.  So either I need to clear something up or I have something to learn.  Please let me know what that thing is, in all sincerity.

The age argument. Abedin brought it up to Clinton, and surely many others brought it up to her as well, whether that can be proven or not. Hillary sent and received materials marked classified, secret, and top secret. The materials were MARKED. Now either she didn't care, or Hillary never took the time to learn about the classification system, which would make her an extremely incompetent person. Do you really believe that Hillary never took the time to learn the classification system when she was in such an important and high position?

That is incorrect.  I read an article just yesterday or the day before where someone compared what she did to someone (I forget who) who did intentionally release classified information.  He released it, not to our enemies, but to, I believe, his publicists turned lover.  And this is exactly why I simply assume you have nothing factual to say.  This is a subconscious attempt at oversimplification by making the matter black and white and eliminating all shades of gray.  In this way the ONLY way it could have been worse than what it was is if she were a traitor.  This is simply bullshit.

I did say "pretty much", but I'll admit my error here. You don't have to be a spy. You just have to knowingly let classified, secret, or top secret information get into the hands of someone who should not have it. Just because it can't be proven that Clinton did that, that doesn't mean that this is not a big deal. I don't really care if Clinton gets in legal trouble or not. Comey said that if Clinton were working for the FBI, she could lose her security clearance, and that might not mean much to you, but to me it says a lot about Hillary and how unfit she is to be President.

You also call the standard unreasonable, but don't point out that is your untrained opinion.  As I have already stated, intent is a VERY big part of our law.  Intent can mean the difference between murder and manslaughter.  It can mean the difference between misdemeanor and felony.  And it CAN mean the difference between charges and no charges.  Destroying a mailbox is a federal offense.  If you use a baseball bat, you go to jail.  If you lose control of your car, you aren't charged.  Intent plays a HUGE and INTEGRAL role in our legal system.  Just because it doesn't ALWAYS play a roll (it doesn't matter if you thought she was 18, usually) doesn't mean that it NEVER plays a roll.

Yes, the standard is certainly unreasonable. Every left leaning news outlet I've gone to (Secular Talk, The Humanist Report, The Young Turks, etc.) all agree that this shows that Hillary is above the law, and that rules don't apply to her. Every single one of these news outlets agree on this point, so yeah, I'm not a trained expert, but many, many people are interpreting the findings to mean the same thing that I think they mean. Pretty much all media that actually leans to the left. Of course the FBI was not going to find a Clinton email saying "yes, I know that I am sacrificing security here and that people might get a hold of classified, secret, or top secret information because of my actions." They were never going to find that kind of email. Does that mean that Clinton didn't do anything wrong? Hell no.

Okay.  I am not aware what you are talking about.  Can you give some evidence for this?  And I DO mean actual "lies" which were "proved", not something which could have been "mistaken" or something she "misunderstood" or something you "believe" to have been a lie.  And when you're done with that, are these lies "chargeable" offenses?  Was she proved to have lied under oath?  And when you're done with THAT, is it in any way unusual for a powerful person to get more leeway than you and I would in such a situation?  Does it NEVER happen in politics?

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

To Clinton’s assertion that she never sent or received information marked classified on her private email, Comey pointed to the investigation’s findings to the contrary.
"That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents,” Comey said. (The State Department on Wednesday said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.)
On Clinton’s statement that she did not email classified material to anyone, Comey responded, “There was classified email.”

“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State, Comey said that was not true.
As far as Clinton’s statement that neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account, Comey said that was “a harder one to answer,” as investigators found traces of work-related emails “on devices or in slack space, whether they were deleted or on a server that was changed out or something else happened to them.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."

Edit: And yes, she did lie under oath, at the Benghazi hearing. Hillary said that she had no email marked classified, either sent or received. The FBI findings of course showed that to be untrue. She did have email marked classified, both sent and received.

[widdershins]

I wouldn't say the possibility of ghosts existing is anywhere close to the possibility that a corrupt politician did something corrupt. Even her biggest supporters like MSNBC and CNN have been talking about how bad this looks for Hillary. You've had "liberals" on MSNBC calling Hillary's defense of the email scandal an embarrassment. This was NOT a witch hunt.

When go go from "this LOOKS bad" to "She should be arrested!" it very much IS a witch hunt.

The age argument. Abedin brought it up to Clinton, and surely many others brought it up to her as well, whether that can be proven or not.

I'm not making an "argument" to in any way prove she did no wrong, merely stating that based on my experience a person that age is not well-versed in Internet technologies or security.  In the absence of evidence of criminal wrongdoing I would assume age to be a factor.

Hillary sent and received materials marked classified, secret, and top secret. The materials were MARKED. Now either she didn't care, or Hillary never took the time to learn about the classification system, which would make her an extremely incompetent person. Do you really believe that Hillary never took the time to learn the classification system when she was in such an important and high position?

False dichotomy.  Surely there are more than two possible choices for why it happened, but narrowing it to these two allows you to call her incompetent, once again showing a heavy bias on your part.  I get it.  You hate Hillary.

I did say "pretty much", but I'll admit my error here. You don't have to be a spy. You just have to knowingly let classified, secret, or top secret information get into the hands of someone who should not have it. Just because it can't be proven that Clinton did that, that doesn't mean that this is not a big deal. I don't really care if Clinton gets in legal trouble or not. Comey said that if Clinton were working for the FBI, she could lose her security clearance, and that might not mean much to you, but to me it says a lot about Hillary and how unfit she is to be President.

Comparing apples and oranges.  Working for the FBI has VASTLY different job requirements and responsibilities than Secretary of State.  They are specifically trained in security.  They have to earn their security clearance in the FBI.  Secretary of State simply gets clearance out of necessity to perform the job.

Yes, the standard is certainly unreasonable. Every left leaning news outlet I've gone to (Secular Talk, The Humanist Report, The Young Turks, etc.) all agree that this shows that Hillary is above the law, and that rules don't apply to her. Every single one of these news outlets agree on this point, so yeah, I'm not a trained expert, but many, many people are interpreting the findings to mean the same thing that I think they mean. Pretty much all media that actually leans to the left. Of course the FBI was not going to find a Clinton email saying "yes, I know that I am sacrificing security here and that people might get a hold of classified, secret, or top secret information because of my actions." They were never going to find that kind of email. Does that mean that Clinton didn't do anything wrong? Hell no.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224

Argument from authority.  They are "left leaning" and that makes them credible or their opinions authoritative?  No news site, no matter how left-leaning, had access to any but a small fraction of the evidence uncovered in the FBI investigation.  Comey said, "No reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case.  So on the one hand I have what the lead investigator said, on the other hand I have what "left leaning news organizations" said.  News organizations are looking at a very small fraction of the story and forming an opinion.

To Clinton’s assertion that she never sent or received information marked classified on her private email, Comey pointed to the investigation’s findings to the contrary.
"That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents,” Comey said. (The State Department on Wednesday said that two of those documents were inadvertently marked.)
On Clinton’s statement that she did not email classified material to anyone, Comey responded, “There was classified email.”

So you assume she "lied".  There are 30,000 "missing" emails alone.  So how many more are not "missing"?  When you've sent your 30,000th email to me I'll grill you about the specifics of 3 of them and see how much you remember.

“Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Asked about Clinton’s claim that all work-related emails were returned to State, Comey said that was not true.
As far as Clinton’s statement that neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account, Comey said that was “a harder one to answer,” as investigators found traces of work-related emails “on devices or in slack space, whether they were deleted or on a server that was changed out or something else happened to them.”
"Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?" Gowdy asked. Comey responded, "No."

Edit: And yes, she did lie under oath, at the Benghazi hearing. Hillary said that she had no email marked classified, either sent or received. The FBI findings of course showed that to be untrue. She did have email marked classified, both sent and received.

You keep presenting me with all this "Hillary is the biggest bitch EVER" shit but what you aren't giving me is any actual evidence of criminal intent.  At this point I'm not even sure what your argument is.  That she's a bitch?  I'm not overly fond of her myself.  That she's criminal?  In what way?  What is the actual crime you are accusing her of?  This discussion is going nowhere.  What IS your actual argument?  That the email scandal was bad?  Yeah, looks that way.  That Secretary of State should have known better?  One would think, but I've never been Secretary of State, so I don't really know the training or lack thereof involved or what type of security resources they are assigned.

What I DO know is that most people know next to NOTHING about computer security, so there should be some training involved or at least some sort of security expert assigned to have regular meetings with those who have access to sensitive information because they got a job rather than having to earn access to sensitive information in order to get that job.  There should be regular security audits in place which should have caught this issue years ago, BEFORE it became a big deal.  People who know security should be handling security and it should be out of the hands of the people who may or may not know security.  But apparently this isn't the case.  It sounds like a policy failure to me.  You can't simply assume that because someone is Secretary of State they simply know all there is to know about the security of the technologies they use.  And it doesn't make a person an "idiot" to not understand a particular technology.  Every unique individual has a different skill set.  I can barely change my oil, but I can kill a virus using Notepad.  Want me to drill a hole?  I am very meticulous in my measuring and lining up the drill, but it STILL won't be in the right place when it's done.  I never have figured out why.  But I can write a program to test your keyboard.  There is no such thing as information which "everybody" should have or knowledge which "everybody" should know.  There just isn't.

So here's my argument.  The FBI found no reason to file charges, case closed.  Is there politics involved?  Isn't there always?  Is there a conspiracy to cover up for Clinton?  Given that it's absolute FACT that there have been MULTIPLE conspiracies to thwart her presidential aspirations, I doubt it.  Republicans have more power in Washington right now than Democrats.  If they can't make trumped up charges stick I highly doubt Democrats can make real charges disappear.  Should charges have been filed?  The FBI director says no.  He says there was no evidence of criminal intent, thus, no charges.  Do YOU or your "left-leaning news outlets" have access to evidence the FBI does not?  Quite the opposite, actually.  The FBI has access to VASTLY MORE information.  Was it a big fuck-up?  Absolutely, and I would like to think we had better security measures in place, but clearly we don't.  But whose fault is that?  Is it Clinton's fault for not taking the time to learn the ins and outs of security?  People spend literal lifetimes on that.  There are college degrees specifically for computer security.  Security is not something you "take the time to learn", it's something you go to college for.  In my opinion it is a failure of the government itself.  There should be regular security audits.  It should be impossible for someone who doesn't know what they're doing to say, "I don't want to use your vastly more secure server.  I'd rather have...let's see....THAT guy set up one at my house."  Law enforcement has a set of rules known as the "chain of evidence" which would apply well here.  At all times the evidence, or in this case classified material, is meticulously monitored and always under the control of those charged with its safety and integrity.  But apparently our government hasn't set up simple security measures for our classified information that every podunk police station in the nation has for making sure a joint gets to trial intact and unaltered.  I do see a failure here, but I see a failure in the system.  The system should protect the security ignorant from themselves and, in doing so, protect our nation from them.

[Atheon]

Hillary has been the target of irrational hatred since 1992. And the "crimes" she has been accused of range from the mind-bogglingly absurd (murdering Vince Foster and countless others) to the utterly trivial (saying she's not like Tammy Wynette's song) to being a strong, ambitious woman (can't have that; however, strong, ambitious men are fine). So when she's accused of sending private emails or not being supernaturally clairvoyant about Benghazeeeeee, I rightly dismiss them as just more anti-Hillary fluff.

In all the years that I've watched Hillary (having been a Bill Clinton supporter through the 90s), I've seen her accused of being everything from a serial murderer to an emotionless bitch, but never has there been any evidence.

Her husband likewise was followed by scandal after scandal, all completely manufactured. He was accused of getting a haircut, and of wearing the wrong color tie. The only scandal that ended up having any truth behind it was that he did get a BJ from a young intern, but that's not illegal.

The hatred of the Clintons is born in Republican irrationality, because the Republicans are AFRAID of the Clintons. They're afraid of the Clintons because they are able to get liberal things done, and they hate that.

[widdershins]

Hillary has been the target of irrational hatred since 1992. And the "crimes" she has been accused of range from the mind-bogglingly absurd (murdering Vince Foster and countless others) to the utterly trivial (saying she's not like Tammy Wynette's song) to being a strong, ambitious woman (can't have that; however, strong, ambitious men are fine). So when she's accused of sending private emails or not being supernaturally clairvoyant about Benghazeeeeee, I rightly dismiss them as just more anti-Hillary fluff.

In all the years that I've watched Hillary (having been a Bill Clinton supporter through the 90s), I've seen her accused of being everything from a serial murderer to an emotionless bitch, but never has there been any evidence.

Her husband likewise was followed by scandal after scandal, all completely manufactured. He was accused of getting a haircut, and of wearing the wrong color tie. The only scandal that ended up having any truth behind it was that he did get a BJ from a young intern, but that's not illegal.

The hatred of the Clintons is born in Republican irrationality, because the Republicans are AFRAID of the Clintons. They're afraid of the Clintons because they are able to get liberal things done, and they hate that.

You know, the only thing that actually made me "want" Clinton to be the nominee was that it was the Republican's worst nightmare.  I actually wanted a Clinton/Trump fight because it scared the shit out of Republicans and I do so love to see them squirm and try to cheat each other instead of the country for a change.  Though nobody is paying attention, it is putting their usual slimy tactics on full display as they try over and over again to get something on Hillary and, when it fails, bitch and whine about how unfair it is and how the party with the most power right now is so persecuted and cheated.  And on the Trump side, they're trying repeatedly to change the rules, not accepting "this is the bed you made", wanting SOME concession, at this point ANY concession, to allow the people's idiotic votes to count.  Today the news is all about them trying to choose Trumps VP pick for him because they're unlikely to get rid of him, which they're also still trying to do.  The Republican philosophy is and has for years been, "If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em" and that is on full display right now.

[FaithIsFilth]

I'm happy that your tone has changed at least a bit, Widdershins, and you are now at least admitting that Clinton did some pretty bad things. Even if you think they were all unintentional, at least you admit they were bad. You can't seriously think the entire media is out to get her, on a witch hunt, and every news outlet is being unreasonable with their response, whether it be Fox News (I have no idea what they're saying about this. Haven't watched Fox in years), left leaning outlets like TYT, or even Clinton's biggest fans in CNN and MSNBC. Just watch this short clip below and see how MSNBC tears into her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

In the clip, they bring up another case where someone did not have intent to distribute classified material, yet they were charged and convicted anyways. This shows that Hillary is indeed above the law, and that rules do not apply to her. I'm certainly not giving an argument from authority here, because I personally think MSNBC is one of the worst news outlets in existence, but they are correct when it comes to this. I should have pointed out the case they pointed out, but I didn't think to do that previously. There you go. Now you know about it. Clinton got special treatment and she is above the law.

You want to know what Clinton actually DID that was so bad? It was revealed that Clinton was likely hacked, which would mean that those hostile actors would have access to classified info, since she had classified info on there. Like MSNBC points out, there have been convictions without intent being there to give others access to the classified material. Because of Clinton, hackers likely did gain access to her server. The FBI of course says that that can't be proven, but saying that doesn't really mean anything, because if hackers gained access to classified information, that's not something that would be provable. And yeah, if foreign countries gained access to that classified information, they're obviously not going to come out and admit it. Hillary Clinton sacrificed security. That's what it comes down to. She was extremely careless and extremely wreckless. If you don't think hackers gaining access to classified material is a big deal, then fine, but I would certainly disagree.

No, I don't hate Clinton. I don't believe in hate. Hate accomplishes nothing. I just think that Hillary is corrupt to the bone, and I think the people deserve better. I like that Hillary has embraced Bernie's college plan. I applaud her for that, even if that's a position she didn't want to take, and was only forced to take because of pressure from Bernie and to try to soften the blow from the email scandal. Whatever made her change her position, I'm just glad she changed it. I've already accepted that Hillary is going to be President of the United States. I actually think your line of reasoning when it comes to the email scandal is probably a good line of reasoning, if you are trying to make a case to the average idiot American voter. You can probably convince millions of them that this is not a big deal, just by arguing that it is not a big deal, and that this whole thing was just about the right wingers going after Hillary in some witch hunt. The average idiot American voter will probably buy that, just like the average Trump voter will buy just about anything, but when you are on a board like atheistforums.com, or you are talking specifically to Bernie/ Jill Stein supporters, the arguments you are making are going to blow up in your face and are not going to get any far left voters to budge.

[widdershins]

I'm happy that your tone has changed at least a bit, Widdershins, and you are now at least admitting that Clinton did some pretty bad things.

No, I said "sounds" bad.  That doesn't mean "is" bad.  I never denied that it was potentially a real issue.  "Is" bad was for the FBI to decide, and they decided "not that bad", from a legal standpoint.

Even if you think they were all unintentional, at least you admit they were bad.

I never intended to give the impression that I "think" anything about it other than I didn't see anything obviously nefarious.  I'm not sure how you're defining "bad" here.  I certainly never thought it was a "good" thing or an "indifferent" thing to happen.  I've never argued that it was in any way good or indifferent, only that I saw no evidence she did anything "bad" intentionally.  Though I do still think it was a Republican witch hunt, which it very much was.

You can't seriously think the entire media is out to get her, on a witch hunt, and every news outlet is being unreasonable with their response, whether it be Fox News (I have no idea what they're saying about this. Haven't watched Fox in years), left leaning outlets like TYT, or even Clinton's biggest fans in CNN and MSNBC. Just watch this short clip below and see how MSNBC tears into her.

I can and do think EXACTLY that.  Controversy brings revenue.  Doom and gloom brings revenue.  ALL news media tends to report news from the darker side.  We don't want to see a happy puppy.  We want to see people fall and burn and die!  Virtually ALL media is tainted by this reality.  Remember the big shark scare from a few years ago when ALL the media was warning everyone to be especially careful of sharks that year?  Do you know where the number of shark attacks fell on the scale for that year compared to others?  Exactly AVERAGE.  But you wouldn't know it to watch the news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVuOWDOHL8

In the clip, they bring up another case where someone did not have intent to distribute classified material, yet they were charged and convicted anyways.

She did not "distribute" classified material to ANY unauthorized person.  She sent it directly and only to "authorized" people.  She did it in a way which was insecure, meaning that it would be easier for unauthorized people to get it, but she DID NOT "distribute" it to unauthorized people.  Once again your language makes it sound worse than it actually was.

This shows that Hillary is indeed above the law, and that rules do not apply to her. I'm certainly not giving an argument from authority here, because I personally think MSNBC is one of the worst news outlets in existence, but they are correct when it comes to this. I should have pointed out the case they pointed out, but I didn't think to do that previously. There you go. Now you know about it. Clinton got special treatment and she is above the law.

I had to look that up and I think they were talking about Kristian Saucier.  Once again this case has NOTHING to do with the Clinton case.  The two cases aren't even comparable.  Saucier, who was trained by the military about his security responsibilities before ever being given security, took pictures of a classified submarine with his personal phone.  That, itself, is a crime.  He CREATED unauthorized classified "documents".  Then when he found out he was being investigated he dumped the cell phone in a dumpster, not even bothering to wipe it first.  So KNOWING FULL WELL that he had classified information in his possession that he was not supposed to have he then INSECURELY DISPOSED OF IT, not accidentally, but in an attempt to make evidence disappear.  In that case he WAS NOT ignorant of the classified nature of the information and, in fact, that's why he got rid of it.

Once again you're comparing apples and plastic apple replicas to show an unfair double standard.  Why do you only ever eat the apples and never the plastic replicas?  Do you have something against plastic?

You want to know what Clinton actually DID that was so bad? It was revealed that Clinton was likely hacked, which would mean that those hostile actors would have access to classified info, since she had classified info on there.

Read that back to yourself.  You were going to tell me what "Clinton" DID.  And what do you tell me?  What "NOT Clinton" "LIKELY did".

Like MSNBC points out, there have been convictions without intent being there to give others access to the classified material. Because of Clinton, hackers likely did gain access to her server.

There have been convictions without intent for DIFFERENT THINGS.  She didn't make unauthorized copies of those emails and then throw them in a dumpster when she found out she was being investigated.  That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what she did.  But yes, there were convictions for completely unrelated things.  That much, at least, is true.

And this is why I don't bother looking into claims without evidence to back them.  First, I had to scan through a more than 9 minute video which I, personally, was not interested in to find what you referenced.  THEN I had to look up who the fuck they were talking about.  And once I've done all that, what do I find?  The two are completely unrelated.  Not even close.  Someone who had to earn security clearance vs someone who got it with the job.  Someone who personally made unauthorized classified documents vs someone who corresponded as part of her job.  Someone who, upon finding out they were being investigated, then disposed of that classified information without taking the 10 seconds to even insecurely delete that information, leading to a third party finding and viewing that classified information through no specific intent on their part vs someone who turned it all over upon request and cooperated, but was LIKELY "hacked" by a nefarious third party who had to personally go out of their way to get the information.  So, I go out of my way to look into your claim and what do I find?  The reason your claim was not specific was because the specifics don't match your claim.  This is why I feel no need or duty to look into these claims unless those who want me to first present me with some specific information OTHER than simply an argument showing why I should bother.

The FBI of course says that that can't be proven, but saying that doesn't really mean anything, because if hackers gained access to classified information, that's not something that would be provable.

So?  What if it was proved?  Is Hillary responsible for the actions of a hacker?  Again, this is STILL completely different than the case I believe they were mentioning.  Here, a hacker MIGHT HAVE come to her with the intention of committing a crime and this is somehow Hillary's crime.  In the other case the guy DID commit a crime when he took the pictures AND THEN disposed of the material without so much as a rudimentary attempt to destroy it, DELIVERING IT TO the third party through gross negligence.  "Hackers came and got it because my security sucked" is very much not the same as "I illegally took pictures of a classified submarine and then, without so much as deleting those pictures, disposed of that phone in a manner so insecure that the classified information did not require specific intent to intercept, but rather was happened upon by a garbage man with no criminal intent".

And yeah, if foreign countries gained access to that classified information, they're obviously not going to come out and admit it. Hillary Clinton sacrificed security. That's what it comes down to. She was extremely careless and extremely wreckless. If you don't think hackers gaining access to classified material is a big deal, then fine, but I would certainly disagree.

I do think it's a big deal.  But I would argue that maybe she wasn't reckless and careless, but possibly clueless.  I see this as a definite failure, not of one person, but of our entire system.  If this was such a bad thing to do, why was it allowed?  Why was there no security expert assigned to this server?  If a "reasonable person" would see a problem with this then why did NOBODY say, "Noooo, you can't do that!"?  Why would she not have "known"?  Because the "system" never considered it before.  You're expecting her to have known and accounted for what the ENTIRE security infrastructure of the US government did not anticipate.  I see this as a systemic failure, not a failure with an individual.

No, I don't hate Clinton. I don't believe in hate. Hate accomplishes nothing. I just think that Hillary is corrupt to the bone, and I think the people deserve better.

We who are less touchy-feely would instead say simply, "I hate her."  You describe it differently than I would, but we're talking about the same thing.

I like that Hillary has embraced Bernie's college plan. I applaud her for that, even if that's a position she didn't want to take, and was only forced to take because of pressure from Bernie and to try to soften the blow from the email scandal. Whatever made her change her position, I'm just glad she changed it. I've already accepted that Hillary is going to be President of the United States. I actually think your line of reasoning when it comes to the email scandal is probably a good line of reasoning, if you are trying to make a case to the average idiot American voter. You can probably convince millions of them that this is not a big deal, just by arguing that it is not a big deal, and that this whole thing was just about the right wingers going after Hillary in some witch hunt. The average idiot American voter will probably buy that, just like the average Trump voter will buy just about anything, but when you are on a board like atheistforums.com, or you are talking specifically to Bernie/ Jill Stein supporters, the arguments you are making are going to blow up in your face and are not going to get any far left voters to budge.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  But most of this absolutely was a right wing witch hunt.  It has been one thing after another, all timed to coincide with dates which might cause her the most political harm.  The GOP is really good at making unreasonable things "sound" reasonable.  In this case they even have you convinced.  But this very much was a witch hunt.  Even if they had found something serious and she had been charged that still wouldn't have made it "not a witch hunt".

You talk as if my position is factually untenable.  Come on.  I expect more of you than that!  It's politics, not mathematics.  There is no "right and wrong", there is only opinions.  I am not now nor have I EVER BEEN trying to get anyone to vote anything for anyone.  I don't care how you vote.  Hillary is not my girl.  I have no love for the woman.  But it is YOUR argument which is short on facts.  Hell, at some points you compare apples to motorcycles, the differences are so extreme.  I still have no clue what your argument is.  My argument is that your argument is dishonest.  That's all.  I want "facts", no more, no less.  If you give me "facts" which support...whatever it is you want me to say, then I guarantee you I will change my mind.  But you have yet to give me a single "fact" to support the presumed claim, "Bad!  Bad Hillary!"  What she DID that was so bad is the SOMEONE ELSE PROBABLY hacked her?  Come on.  What she did was the same thing as illegally taking photos of a classified submarine on a personal phone and then throwing that phone into the garbage without the slightest attempt to secure the information on it in an attempt to avoid prosecution?  Come on.

I think now what I thought in the beginning.  She did a stupid thing because she didn't know it was stupid because she's an old lady with a computer.  What is it that you think?  What is it you're trying to convince me of?  Do you think she was aware of the risks and didn't care?  That's kind of how you come off, and that would, indeed, be a VERY bad thing.  But you can't honestly think that.  Or do you think she was unaware of the risk, but should have been aware?  This seems to be what you're actually suggesting, but that is, as I said, a systemic failure, not a personal failure.  After all this I still really don't know where you're coming from other than that you really don't like Hillary and seem to really want this to be something.  I almost get the sense that you were wishing as hard as the Republicans that this would be something, presumably so you could get Bernie instead.  Admittedly, that's just a wild guess on my part.  Like I said, I really don't know where you're coming from.

[Baruch]

A bunch of bohemians claiming how their hatred of Trump or hatred of Hillary is rational ... bwahahah

Can any of you, any of you, step back and see what you look like to a neutral party?  Love you all.

Re-reading Plato's Republic ... I have to agree that the whole Enlightenment politics of republicanism and democracy is a complete bust.  Frankly, even though I don't like him either, I would rather have Obama declare a dictatorship, cancel all elections, and not let any more inexorable candidates and their moron supporters any more fun.

I do hear that the next PM might be a woman.  GB is so much far ahead of the Colonies!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Can any of you, any of you, step back and see what you look like to a neutral party?  Love you all.

And who would that be?

[FaithIsFilth]

I had to look that up and I think they were talking about Kristian Saucier.

Nope. Kristian Saucier is not the name. It's Bryan Nishimura. You are ignorant and proud of it. You ask me to do your research for you, and then when I do, you don't even look at it and whine that you had to watch something you clearly never watched, or didn't pay attention to. Your head is so far up Hillary's ass that you can't be reasoned with. The discussion between you and I is over. I do not respect ignorance, and I'm clearly not going to get anywhere arguing with someone who sees ignorance not as a bad thing, but as something to be proud of.

[widdershins]

Nope. Kristian Saucier is not the name. It's Bryan Nishimura. You are ignorant and proud of it.

That's a  little fucking harsh given that I made an attempt to look up who the hell you were talking about and simply came up with the wrong name.

You ask me to do your research for you, and then when I do, you don't even look at it and whine that you had to watch something you clearly never watched, or didn't pay attention to.

I never asked you to do shit other than back your claims.  How about this, next time give me some damned FACTS.  All you had to do was give me the NAME of the person you were talking about.  Instead you gave me a link to a video, which was more than 9 minutes of commentary with that name in there somewhere.  I know that video interests YOU, but it didn't interest me.  You are the one trying to convince me of whatever the fuck you're saying.  How fucking hard is it to type "Bryan Nishimura" instead of "some guy"?

Your head is so far up Hillary's ass that you can't be reasoned with. The discussion between you and I is over. I do not respect ignorance, and I'm clearly not going to get anywhere arguing with someone who sees ignorance not as a bad thing, but as something to be proud of.

Now you're just being an ass.  I've fucking told you repeatedly that I am not a Hillary supporter.  I could care less.  I'm interested in TRUTH.  You are not.  You love you some witch hunt.  I looked up Bryan Nishimura.  He copied classified materials to his personal device.  He took those materials with him.  He kept them after his deployment ended.  He made additional copies.  He purposely and illegally maintained copies of those materials.  ONCE AGAIN, you're talking apples and oranges, copying and keeping copies of classified materials vs sending a fucking email.

Your head is so far up Bernie's ass you can't get over your butthurt that he lost.  How do I know you're a Bernie support.  I fucking don't.  Apparently we are just to the point where we are making ludicrous claims about each other and pretending they're fucking true.  I realize we're talking the religion of politics here, but in all seriousness you were the last person I expected to have a conversation with which degraded into this.  You were also the last person I ever suspected would ever confuse opinion, and this conversation is VERY MUCH nothing but our political "opinions", with what is truly right and wrong.  Seriously, you need to get YOUR head out of your own ass and see this for what it is, a difference in OPINION which you should have no expectation of changing because neither yours nor mine is "right", as is the nature of "opinions".

[widdershins]

This should help you out a bit:

Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily (but possibly <- my addition) based on fact or knowledge

Fact - a thing that is indisputably the case

Learn the difference or all our conversations are going to go the same way.

[FaithIsFilth]

How do I know that without delving through Faux News for my "facts" on how evil Hillary Clinton is?

This was something you posted earlier in the thread. You were trying to make it out that this was nothing but a Republican/ Fox witch hunt. I posted that video to show that you couldn't be any more wrong about that. In this thread, you've sounded like someone who works for the Clinton campaign. You should have known what you were talking about at least a little bit when you jumped into the debate and started putting forth a defense for Hillary, just like a creationist should probably brush up on the non-creationist point of view and know what he's actually arguing against before he jumps into a discussion on evolution, because when you have a creationist who doesn't even understand his opponent's position, the creationist can't really have anything useful to say, because he just doesn't know much about the topic he is discussing. If you had come in saying "I don't know anything about this so I have no position right now... I want to learn." that would have been one thing, but you came in and acted like you knew all too well what was going on... A Faux News and Republican witch hunt.