I bet everyone here thought America was a democracy. By the way, Youma called the faithless elector shit way back in the primaries and deserves some god damn credit for it.
In that case, you shouldn't have a problem pointing out just one of them that was successfully prosecuted, while at the same time failing to meet Comey's criteria. As a reminder, those criteria are: "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice."
And don't just say "a case like this totally exists." Actually name one. One where intent could not be demonstrated, and no evidence could be found that the documents in question were exposed to unauthorized personnel, and the number of mishandled documents wasn't about an order of magnitude higher than it was in Clinton's case. You have not yet done so.
Hillary had generated classified material while speaking to Blumenthal, had her security compromised in China, and had numerous devices that are now missing. An IT guy, apparently given immunity before agreeing on any terms of what relevant info he'd have to offer for said immunity, deleted a multitude of emails after the order was given to preserve them. I'd say that's orders of magnitude above taking a picture in a sub and throwing it away. Again, I can bring up about half of these, explain how some detail's are similar, you'll say how some details are not, and we'll get nowhere. The actual
point I'm making is that most of these people had a chance to suffer the consequences of their actions, most were at least just about to be charged or even tried, before they were saved through extraordinary circumstances, like a Presidential pardon. What Hillary did, was certainly worse than what many of them did. If I wanted to shape each case up point for point, I wouldn't have linked 20 of them and a google search. Obviously not what I was getting at. And intentional misconduct isn't needed for a negligence charge.
Also, her aide had access to the server without clearance. As many as 10 people did. She explicitly allowed it.
Alright, but it seems like there's really nothing in particular to suggest foul play here. Just securely disposing of retired State Dept. devices
That link agrees with me, Easy. They likely did not securely destroy the devices. The aides claim was "breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer." That's still assuming they destroyed them before they had knowledge of the investigation. I haven't seen anyone even ask the question, so I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they did.
Besides, you're still conveniently disregarding that Sec. State is just a veto point for those kinds of deals. Separate government departments were responsible for initiating, mediating, and proposing them. Were they all bending to Clinton Foundation donor interests, too? They actually brokered those deals, and Clinton's part was just not to oppose the Pentagon's policy actions on the matter.
Her ties to Saudi Arabia are worse than allowing billions of dollars in arms deals to go through. The Clinton's are one of the main players in propping up certain powerful Wahhabist families, they've negotiated and pushed for the freedom of known Wahhabi terrorists, they've subversively pitted Middle Eastern factions against each other to aid their allies. She had access to the 28 pages showing the Saudi link to 9/11 a loong fucking time ago, the plans she not only wanted to continue, but to ramp up, are pretty much what got the ME in the mess it's in, and by extension the EU in the mess it's in. And the only motivation I've ever been able to discern from ANY of it, is war.
She either doesn't care about being pushed into war by the influences she surrounds herself with, or she benefits from it too.
I think it's worth pointing out, an ACTUAL attack on US soil and US citizens has closer ties to the government of your "close ally" Saudi Arabia, than any of this Russia hacking shit has to their government.
Which does beg the question of why he hasn't released, and won't release, his tax returns. Because the possibility that he just has more to hide, compared to every other presidential candidate since the 70's, really is the most likely reason. We know for certain that it's not actually any of the reasons he gave us, at various points in the campaign.
Probably a bunch of shit in there he doesn't want people to see. But I kind of look at this like speaking to cops. Why give anything to people who's only intent is to gather everything they can against you?
Not releasing didn't seem to hurt him much. I'd imagine he'd have some shit to explain if he did.
That's technically true, but it's also just semantics. Why bother? It's not like we're keeping score. Regardless of wording, the implications and intent were quite clear.
I still disagree with the premise that what he said was any kind of call to action for Russia to hack ANYTHING. As a non-politician running for the presidency, he's of course interested in what's in the emails, and interested in Wikileaks doing what it does.
Don't worry, if it means the much to you, I bet it will change now.
Yeah, like that time her poll numbers were too high for their liking. ;^)
Or like that time they found a bunch of new evidence and they had to reopen the case long enough to take it and bury it all.
So which is it anyway? Was it the letter that did her in, or was it Russia hacking into the American mainframe? Or was it that she was just absolutely an awful, low-energy representative for her own voter-base who was only in the position she was in because Tim Kaine stepped down as chair of the DNC, allowing Wasserman Schultz to take his place, who did nothing but discuss Bernie as a problem that needed to step aside for her turn
I still disagree that invoking his name is enough to undo the evidence there. The PACs in the videos undoubtedly paid agitators to go to Trump rallies and start fights, and plenty of independent evidence exists of it. I don't see how your video compares to catching someone on tape saying they were hired by a man that works for a Clinton pac to agitate Trump voters, said man confirming he hires agitators to try and get themselves punched in the face, and multiple independent, unaffiliated sources finding some of these very individuals who claim they are paid to get facially punched attempting to do exactly that. I'm aware of O'Keefe and his shit. I looked it all up before I posted a single video, that's why there were three out by the time I did. There's no comparison between what you posted and the evidence that exists of what the PACs were doing. Just how unreasonable and ignorant of evidence are you supposed make yourself when the name O'Keefe is spoken?
That said, one major issue I saw with it was that the PACs and Hillary's campaign were communicating, which in '12, and I think '08 was a pretty big thing. Although they absolutely were, and it's still legally shady business, the law seems to be a lot more lenient towards it now.
Bird-dogging is still fucked and this is a good chance to spread awareness and make sure laws are passed that prevent politicians from doing this. Creamer's relationship with Obama, and his initial denial of it, was still concerning.
What? What need?
It seems like your confusion here stems from the fundamental assumption that people like Trump only take advantage of tax loopholes when they absolutely have to.
Nope. I think they take advantage of loopholes whenever they get the chance. And they should.
Try that one again. Who makes those tax loopholes? And what, partly bullshit, justification do they give?
It's objectively several times smaller than the biggest and dumbest classified material mishandling of last year. And I don't say that lightly.
Which was what?
You... you know that story's bullshit, right?
No it isn't. Making up bullshit about factual things being bullshit is what gets people believing in shit like pizzagate. Knock it off. Pedophiles exist. Epstein is one of them. He happens to party with elites and probably fucked some cutie 14yo girls with a couple of them.
The Podesta's are art collectors and like edgy shit. They've also been known to hang out with pedophiles, even on a Japanese island. Shit might sound weird but that's all true.
The funny thing is, the Epstein island temple thing is actually what's worth doubting, and the only reason I took it seriously is because I know about his stupid cow and the various mysterious projects he undertakes every few years.
Thing is, with Clinton seemingly a solid lock for victory at the time, and the Trump camp crying about unfair treatment, Comey also had to worry that following standard FBI policy in this matter would stir up accusations of helping "rig" the vote by "covering up" for Clinton if/when Trump ended up being a sore loser, afterwards. I think he should've just bitten the bullet on that, but it was a tough call to make, and I can understand why he chose to break with tradition and act as he did.
Would've been better if the goddamn head of FBI didn't let a dipshit pundit's baseless mudslinging influence his decision making like that, though.
Yup, he was hated by at least half the voting population at all times, gave no shits, tried to do his job anyway, and ended up with everyone hating him. What a terrible dishonest man he is.