All of this is making me wonder how much politicians got away with back before email was a thing.
You probably should have read them through. Then you could tell me which of those cases didn't involve clear evidence of "some combination of: 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."https://www.google.ca/search?q=soliders+charged+with+mishandling+classified+documents&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=SrwPWN_4AqPYjwTx9ZyIBQ#q=soldiers+charged+with+mishandling+classified+material
https://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-email-secrecy-double-standard/
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/mishandling-classified-information-leads-to-jail-time-if-your-name-is-not-clinton/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7213/naval-reservist-sentenced-mishandling-classified-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out
I'll be honest, I didn't even read them all in full. Just enough to know what Comey said was dishonest.
Source me stuff about Clinton's devices, destruction of thereof, and what it's all got to do with the email case?I can tell you the stuff related to Paul Combetta I know to be accurate. The fact that Clinton used 13 devices and could only account for the two of them that her aide smashed with a hammer is also accurate. In fact, from what you posted yourself there, I'm pretty confident it's all accurate.
What part are you unsure of? I can likely find a source for it or at the very least the source of any confusion.
Well, let's examine that.There is about as much correlation between the lawsuit being dropped and Trumps donation as there is between Hillary's repeated foundation donations and her boosts in arms trading. :^)
Yeah, I accidentally use other people's money to buy stuff with all the time. Could happen to anyone, really, (provided they're incredibly incompetent and/or dishonest).And sending the money through the Trump Foundation was just an accounting error.
Yeah, super nice of him to actually pay the fine he was levied with, when he was caught making an illegal campaign contribution with misappropriated charity funds. A true saint, that man.It's been made up for, Trump paid his fine to the IRS, was refunded by Bondi's PAC, and was such a nice guy he decided not to cash the refund and reimburse the foundation himself with his own money. :^)
That's weird, because I went through the list of all Clinton Foundation donors with total contributions of $500,000 or more, and there are only eight foreign governments even on there. Namely: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands. Of which, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had both ceased donating well before she became Secretary of State, and from what I've been able to pull up, made no known contributions at all while she was in office.http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost
That does look bad. Though, it'd look a lot worse if it had been sent before that arms deal, rather than afterwards.https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774#efmBBMBDe
Hillary knew Saudi Arabia and Qatar were aiding ISIS when she granted them weapons deals. An $11 billion arms deal was granted to Qatar a month before that email was sent. A lot of weapons and equipment have been sold to both countries since. A lot of money has been donated to Clinton's foundation by these countries, their leaders, their ally's, and the contractors they're purchasing the weapons from.
But... Trump's the one who endorsed it.In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Hillary Clinton caused brexit.
Apparently, Trump can get money from members of the Saudi royal family, and it just counts as "making money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent."Yup, Trump made money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent. Is that comparable to the relationship Clinton has with multiple countries that she knows to have aided American enemies? She gets donations, and sells favours to enemies on the American taxpayers dime. Favours that will ultimately hurt the Americans she's meant to protect.
Dunno. Did 16 separate agencies, including the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, along with multiple private security firms, all sign off on those?Really? Like they confirmed anthrax and WMDs? Or that a tape caused the attack on Benghazi?
Dunno that, either; it's really not my area at all. Something about malware analysis and metadata and servers. It is funny that the Russian government hasn't denied that the hacks came from Russia, though - just that they ordered it.How did they confirm it?
Yeah, right after "Russia, if you're listening," and before "I think you will be mightily rewarded (by our press)."Russia was accused of perpetrating the hack attack before Trump's statement, so there is in fact no video evidence showing Trump asking them to do so. I'm very confident of this. His statement was also, by the way, a statement, not a question. He said "I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
Yeah - what the heck do information security experts know about hacks 'n' shit?Also, every reliable source has suggested that Russia isn't the source of the leaks. Julian Assange himself said the source wasn't Russia.
Actually, Comey was pretty clear on there not being any way to rule out the possibility an outside party managed to access them at some point.Even if it were, that doesn't nullify the information found in them. Also, if Russia is such a big bad hack master, why should anyone believe Clinton's claim that her email server was always secure, especially considering she can't account for 11 of the devices she used?
No, but investigations on that sort of thing shouldn't be treated as political tools either. Especially when the matter has already been fully investigated. And then re-investigated. And then investigated another five times. That's just a gross misuse of administrative resources and taxpayer's money.Investigating an incident that began with the State department immediately lying about the reasoning for said incident, that involved 4 Americans being killed, some of whose presence in the area was entirely unexplained at the time, and the ignored requests for extra security spanning across months. That's an abuse of power? Should stuff like that go without any sort of investigation or oversight in order to prepare for similar events in the future?
While it's clear that a number of DNC officials did conspire to rig the nomination in her favor, none of the information leaked, to date, actually implicates Clinton herself. The closest thing to a direct link is how she immediately hired Wasserman-Schultz after her resignation, and DWS herself hasn't been shown to have taken any part in coordinating against Sanders. (Although a bunch of what she wrote about his campaign was certainly inappropriately dismissive and/or disdainful, given her position.)There are clear issues with Hillary that span far past her two most recent scandals. She secretly coordinated with the DNC to rob Bernie Sanders of the nomination.
Nnnnot really. Cherry-picked footage provided by discredited filmmakers is pretty worthless. (Here's an example of: why.) Even if it weren't, Hillary herself still wouldn't be implicated at all.She's now been unwittingly implicated by Bob Creamer with inciting violence at Trump rallies, election fraud, and coordinating with super-PACs.
...which is irrelevant information, and still wouldn't mean anything even if Project Veritas actually had any credibility left, to speak of. On top of which, I'm guessing Zero Hedge is your best source for this - correct?Bob Creamer by the way, has been to the White House over 300 times.
In terms of criminality, she's got a better record than Trump does, on the basis that he's actually been found guilty of breaking the law before. In terms of hypocrisy, there's just no contest at all. She's practically the poster girl for political hypocrisy and yet, somehow, that buffoon's actually managed to contradict himself more in the last year than she's done herself over the last thirty of them.From her actions in Haiti, to arms sales to American enemies, to her hypocritical support of her pedophile husband, to the sharing of classified and confidential material, to the political divisiveness the Clinton's impose even through misuse of government resources, to Filegate, to Watergate, to Whitewater. There are probably a hundred examples showing Hillarys corruption, carelessness and criminality. Many of them involve abusing the role she's been privileged with, and directly selling out her own peoples interests for political or financial gain.
I absolutely agree that it's terrible that she's actually put a vote to all those wars, that Trump himself merely spoke out in favor of, at the time.She has almost never voted against war.
Yeah, he says that. (And if it was one of his tax attorneys running, I might actually expect that he had the qualifications to do so.) Of course, he's been more consistently running in favor of "cutting taxes" as his primary approach to economic stimulus, which just doesn't at all line up with an intention to increase effective tax burden on the wealthy by eliminating such loopholes.How so? He's running on the platform of eliminating those types of loopholes and simplifying tax law.
To be honest, I could look up what that is, what it implies, and where the story comes from. But I've already spent several hours today looking through the Clinton Foundation's tax forms in an attempt to substantiate some Zero Hedge documents (without success). Source me?Bill Clinton flew on Jeffery Epstein's "Lolita Express" 26 times.
You've demonstrated that, in a particular sample group, more people have been caught lying on one side than the other. Can you also demonstrate that this result, and Politifact's methodology as a whole, is actually tied to having targeted that side unfairly?
I read multiple ones that fit, that include the individuals involved being indicted, losing security clearance, losing rank, or even being jailed. Almost all of them show Clinton got off easy.You probably should have read them through. Then you could tell me which of those cases didn't involve clear evidence of "some combination of: 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."
As far as I can see, the Saucier case comes the closest. In that case, though, he didn't just fail to flawlessly uphold the regulations on classified material, but deliberately went out of his way to break them, distributed them to unauthorized personnel, and then made every effort to destroy all evidence and procure none of it, when questioned. And while there may be plenty of reason to suspect that the same (to some extent) applies to Clinton, thorough investigation has not turned up sufficient evidence to support prosecution on that basis. Comey's statement holds true.
Like I said my facts here are a bit messy. Apparently it was 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads. Here's CNN, obviously a very pro-Clinton media outlet, talking about it:Source me stuff about Clinton's devices, destruction of thereof, and what it's all got to do with the email case?
Trump scenario seems spot on.Well, let's examine that.
Florida's attorney general's office reveals that they're looking into joining in on another one of many lawsuits against one of Trump's many fraudulent enterprises. Trump, a man who has repeatedly bragged to the public about his history of contributing financially to politicians' campaigns in exchange for favorable treatment, illegally sends a contribution from his "charity" to said attorney general's campaign. Less than a month later, the case against him is dropped.
On the flip side of things, the Saudi government gives a bunch of money to Clinton's charity in 1997, while she holds no political office, which is used to build a library. More than a decade later, as Secretary of State, she allows American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, (among other allied nations), to go through - which is to say, didn't reject the course of action presented to her office for approval, by the Pentagon departments responsible for proposing and brokering such deals.
Now, granted, that doesn't prove anything in either case. But, that definitely doesn't mean they're both equally suspicious. Not even close.
It was one of his accountants who took responsibility. If your job is to input three variables onto pieces of paper all day, it's understandable that you'd fuck one of them up eventually. If we're being for realsies though, obviously it was a bribe.Yeah, I accidentally use other people's money to buy stuff with all the time. Could happen to anyone, really, (provided they're incredibly incompetent and/or dishonest).
He sold a portion of something he owned to a Saudi prince. I think he has some hotels in Saudi Arabia or something too. I'm actually not trolling. I really don't consider that to be an indication his relationship with Saudi Arabia is anywhere near the Bush/Clinton level.Apparently, Trump can get money from members of the Saudi royal family, and it just counts as "making money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent."
Meanwhile, members of the Saudi royal family can have once given money to a charity that Clinton doesn't even get any money from, and so she must be "selling favours to enemies on the American taxpayers dime."
...you trollin'?
Two agencies put out a JOINT statement on behalf of 16 agencies that said that the leaks "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts". Literally nothing, and like all the other times it was literally nothing, Hillary will lie to find a way to start a war over it. What she's doing here is actually pretty disgusting, and pushing it just helps show everyone how disgusting of a person she is.Dunno. Did 16 separate agencies, including the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, along with multiple private security firms, all sign off on those?
I think he was being sarcastic on that last part there, suggesting the American press would do their job, but other than that I see no questions being asked, no demands being made, nor, discounting that last bit, anything nonfactual about what he said. The DNC had already been "hacked". He did not ask them to do it like you said.Yeah, right after "Russia, if you're listening," and before "I think you will be mightily rewarded (by our press)."
I was also wrong. He never said it wasn't Russia, only made indications to it not being Russia.Also, note that Assange can only testify as to who provided him with the documents. Which isn't necessarily the same as testifying as to who hacked them. See?
If Clinton's mismanagement allowed classified material to get, not only into the wrong hands, but into the hands of what is apparently America's number one threat, then that is a much bigger problem than the one they sold. Comey actually approached that from the opposite way, saying there is no way to prove classified material was ever compromised, not that there was no way to prove it wasn't.Actually, Comey was pretty clear on there not being any way to rule out the possibility an outside party managed to access them at some point.
They didn't re-investigate the same aspects of the case. Each investigation led to more questions than answers and they kept finding legitimate need to reopen the investigation. Even the whole email thing, the need for a completely separate investigation, spawned as a result of the Benghazi investigation. Had they not kept reopening the investigation, Hillary's server may have never been found.No, but investigations on that sort of thing shouldn't be treated as political tools either. Especially when the matter has already been fully investigated. And then re-investigated. And then investigated another five times. That's just a gross misuse of administrative resources and taxpayer's money.
I don't see what your examples have to do with anything. Did you watch the videos? Also, I made a post in the O'Keefe thread in relation to this. The onus is on the doubters to provide evidence that O'Keefe hired body doubles or something to say the shit they did in the video.
Not really aware of that site, but I might have been to it before....which is irrelevant information, and still wouldn't mean anything even if Project Veritas actually had any credibility left, to speak of. On top of which, I'm guessing Zero Hedge is your best source for this - correct?
Contradiction isn't hypocrisy. And you are right, you don't have to search hard to find that Trump is a huge hypocrite. I just wouldn't say he's the "defend a pedophile by telling the victim he raped into a coma for five days she was asking for it, stick by your pedophile, rapist husband while abusing his victims, get in bed with some of the worst women's rights abusers in the world, all while pretending to be a champion for 'victims should be heard'" type of hypocrite. Hell, he's maybe even close. Just not quite there.In terms of criminality, she's got a better record than Trump does, on the basis that he's actually been found guilty of breaking the law before. In terms of hypocrisy, there's just no contest at all. She's practically the poster girl for political hypocrisy and yet, somehow, that buffoon's actually managed to contradict himself more in the last year than she's done herself over the last thirty of them.
He's been in favor of some of them, certainly no where near to all of them. If you're referring to that "he supported Iraq" thing Clinton's been doing to Trump, I am well aware of the story. It's a good troll on Trump.I absolutely agree that it's terrible that she's actually put a vote to all those wars, that Trump himself merely spoke out in favor of, at the time.
How does "eliminate the need for loopholes by lowering corporate tax rates" not line up with eliminating loopholes? I really don't get your argument at all. If it's that he won't be able to get his policies passed the way he's outlined them, that's probably true. But that'd be true of anyone that is elected.Yeah, he says that. (And if it was one of his tax attorneys running, I might actually expect that he had the qualifications to do so.) Of course, he's been more consistently running in favor of "cutting taxes" as his primary approach to economic stimulus, which just doesn't at all line up with an intention to increase effective tax burden on the wealthy by eliminating such loopholes.
Jeffery Epstein is a famous wealthy pedophile who owned an island and a jet he or others started referring to as the "Lolita Express". He was convicted in 2008.To be honest, I could look up what that is, what it implies, and where the story comes from. But I've already spent several hours today looking through the Clinton Foundation's tax forms in an attempt to substantiate some Zero Hedge documents (without success). Source me?
See, we can't know how much Drumpf(lulz) or Lyin' Ted lied based on Polifacts facts, because they lied about Lyin' Ted lying.You've demonstrated that, in a particular sample group, more people have been caught lying on one side than the other. Can you also demonstrate that this result, and Politifact's methodology as a whole, is actually tied to having targeted that side unfairly?
If Dumbass Donald and Lyin' Ted tell more lies in public than their political opponents, should Politifact be digging more deeply into said opponent's speeches, by comparison, in an effort to balance the overall results between them?
Don't fear Anti-Clinton people so much you become like them. There is no reason to assume this is overblown and no reason to assume this is some "conspiracy". The fact that Weiner had Clinton's emails on one of his devices is BAD in itself.Well, first of all it's looking like the whole "FBI reopening investigation" was overblown quite a bit. The FBI was investigating Wiener, and found some emails that could be related to the Clinton case, so the FBI director sent a note (as required) to congress explaining that there and was new evidence. Plus, Clinton supporters are questioning the motives of Comey, understand it as a political hit piece, etc.
On the other side, Trump supporters (and Anti-Clinton people) have been cooking up conspiracies about Clinton forever. This won't stop them.
I wasn't aware they ever publicly released the dates of the donations. Only who provided what. Not even what they specifically provided, moreso a bracket they fall into.That's weird, because I went through the list of all Clinton Foundation donors with total contributions of $500,000 or more, and there are only eight foreign governments even on there. Namely: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands. Of which, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had both ceased donating well before she became Secretary of State, and from what I've been able to pull up, made no known contributions at all while she was in office.
Directly? No.At the same time, apparently I'm missing quite a lot anyway. Looking through a bunch of the Foundation's tax returns pulled up a bunch of other foreign governments listed as donors, (without specifying amounts), and foreign government contribution totals come out to about $18 million over her term as Secretary. Either way, all showed that the Clintons themselves received no compensation at all from the Foundation, which does beg the question of why any prospective donations, regardless of amount, would have created an incentive for her to provide favorable treatment to any particular foreign nations anyway.
For this, I spent much of the aforementioned "several hours" hella time going piece-by-piece through the released tax returns for each year during which HRC was Secretary of State. They don't provide a breakdown on which foreign government provided what amount, but you can find a list of foreign governments that contributed (which, weirdly enough, did appear to include a number that weren't on the publicly-released donor list - at least not directly, distinctly, and/or by name and title). I also came across a couple of fringe sites claiming to have "leaked documents" showing otherwise, which, on looking through everything, apparently just took the biggest number they could find on the tax return from a given year, and then listed it under "foreign government donations" on a separate, unverified, "leaked supplementary form."I wasn't aware they ever publicly released the dates of the donations. Only who provided what. Not even what they specifically provided, moreso a bracket they fall into.
...right.Directly? No.
Nice. I've heard some people say they were withholding donors but nothing ever came of it.They probably have an easy explanation for it.For this, I spent much of the aforementioned "several hours" hella time going piece-by-piece through the released tax returns for each year during which HRC was Secretary of State. They don't provide a breakdown on which foreign government provided what amount, but you can find a list of foreign governments that contributed (which, weirdly enough, did appear to include a number that weren't on the publicly-released donor list - at least not directly, distinctly, and/or by name and title). I also came across a couple of fringe sites claiming to have "leaked documents" showing otherwise, which, on looking through everything, apparently just took the biggest number they could find on the tax return from a given year, and then listed it under "foreign government donations" on a separate, unverified, "leaked supplementary form."
As much as I hate The Young Turks, and I really, really hate The Young Turks, they've had a few good videos out lately....right.
If we were to just go around accusing people of conflict of interest based on them getting some indirect and intangible benefit from outside parties, based on a conclusion that can only be reached by tangential and speculative reasoning, then nobody would be safe.