Do you think she got a free pass?
She got the same free pass the other elites get. We found evidence of crimes and gross negligence with classified documents - but we're not going to recommend indictment.
I used free pass from as my impression of how the right would see it. I was not speaking from my personal context. I am a nobody and when I notice I have an opinion I just shake my head and wonder how that happened,
Waves rise and break on the shore while seagulls wheel overhead. Can you hear their calls?
wat the hell?
ARE YOU FUCKING STONED?
Waves rise and break on the shore while seagulls wheel overhead. Can you hear their calls?
No, but I can see the bait that attracts them . . . Sanders crabs, each stuck on a pointed political shtick.
I know what I wont be supporting. I don't buy into what I know I don't know about and that is the reality of Hillary. IOW, I don't condemn based on what someone says. Evidence of what you're saying is not apparent to me. I wont waste my vote on the minor candidates either. Trump or Hillary is my choice and I choose Hillary.()But if you vote for Hillary, you are getting the same self-serving evil in an even more calculating package.
I for one am convinced that IF the FBI could have developed evidence of a crime indictments would have been handed down.Do you think she got a free pass?
Sanders is the hope of millions but not mine. His positions are not feasible and cannot possibly pass Congress even with his revolution taking hold. Neither can Trump's. Hillary might could get some version of her positions through... maybe.Sanders was our only hope, nothing more. We are naught but grains of sand on the beach. The gulls wheel in the sky and the light of the sun dances on the waves.
Sanders is the hope of millions but not mine. His positions are not feasible and cannot possibly pass Congress even with his revolution taking hold. Neither can Trump's. Hillary might could get some version of her positions through... maybe.
Look at her carefully crafted explanation of the email story. The FBI and the earlier report have demolished every single facet. She not only blatantly set up her own server in contravention of the law, received and sent classified documents (including some which were inherently classified and even some which were marked classified), destroyed emails that official government documents and edited others (which we've known since the Blumenthal hack became public), and lied about it at every single step. If you wish to hold your nose and vote for Hillary I have no problem with that - I find Trump to be a thoroughly loathsome character as well. But please don't pretend that you're holding your nose to not be overwhelmed with her sweet, fresh fragrance. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption and dishonesty in supreme power, period, a vote to embrace the form of government seen in Russia or Venezuela which does not even pretend to be accountable to any law.I know what I wont be supporting. I don't buy into what I know I don't know about and that is the reality of Hillary. IOW, I don't condemn based on what someone says. Evidence of what you're saying is not apparent to me. I wont waste my vote on the minor candidates either. Trump or Hillary is my choice and I choose Hillary.()
How can you go around seeing what is not apparent to him? I just don't see any way you can possibly both be right. Curious indeed.Look at her carefully crafted explanation of the email story. The FBI and the earlier report have demolished every single facet. She not only blatantly set up her own server in contravention of the law, received and sent classified documents (including some which were inherently classified and even some which were marked classified), destroyed emails that official government documents and edited others (which we've known since the Blumenthal hack became public), and lied about it at every single step. If you wish to hold your nose and vote for Hillary I have no problem with that - I find Trump to be a thoroughly loathsome character as well. But please don't pretend that you're holding your nose to not be overwhelmed with her sweet, fresh fragrance. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption and dishonesty in supreme power, period, a vote to embrace the form of government seen in Russia or Venezuela which does not even pretend to be accountable to any law.
I don't know what her motive(s) was/were on the relevant issues. Neither can I place myself in her shoes and determine what might I have done. I can by inferential logic conclude an innocent and criminal behavior attached to what is factual. For instance, the FBI guy said there was an indication of classification on some paragraphs of the emails received by her... a '(c)'. Now then. She may have known that meant 'classified' or may not have. I'd know IF that was the norm and I was aware of that. However, the staff folks may not have known and sent the email by mistake and she opened and responded. In either case Mens Rea is not present as I see it. In this thread folks seem to use Actus Reus to confirm Mens Rea. You have to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - the mind set of the party and that was not achieved as per FBI. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned she did not know a crime was being committed (by her or anyone else).Look at her carefully crafted explanation of the email story. The FBI and the earlier report have demolished every single facet. She not only blatantly set up her own server in contravention of the law, received and sent classified documents (including some which were inherently classified and even some which were marked classified), destroyed emails that official government documents and edited others (which we've known since the Blumenthal hack became public), and lied about it at every single step. If you wish to hold your nose and vote for Hillary I have no problem with that - I find Trump to be a thoroughly loathsome character as well. But please don't pretend that you're holding your nose to not be overwhelmed with her sweet, fresh fragrance. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption and dishonesty in supreme power, period, a vote to embrace the form of government seen in Russia or Venezuela which does not even pretend to be accountable to any law.
To honestly believe that you'd have to accept that she is literally too stupid to cross the street, even with the benefit of dozens of paid staffers, lawyers and advisers. She lied about literally every face of this whole affair, as determined by the FBI. How can you simultaneously conclude that she was simply wrong about every single facet and yet still conclude that she should be President?I don't know what her motive(s) was/were on the relevant issues. Neither can I place myself in her shoes and determine what might I have done. I can by inferential logic conclude an innocent and criminal behavior attached to what is factual. For instance, the FBI guy said there was an indication of classification on some paragraphs of the emails received by her... a '(c)'. Now then. She may have known that meant 'classified' or may not have. I'd know IF that was the norm and I was aware of that. However, the staff folks may not have known and sent the email by mistake and she opened and responded. In either case Mens Rea is not present as I see it. In this thread folks seem to use Actus Reus to confirm Mens Rea. You have to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - the mind set of the party and that was not achieved as per FBI. Ergo, as far as I'm concerned she did not know a crime was being committed (by her or anyone else).
IF I can hold she did nothing wrong why would I attach all the things you say she did wrong (criminal) to her. I say she didn't do what you say or she did some things you say but not knowingly doing so with a bad heart. She, therefore, returns to her status quo ante in my mind. Pure as the driven snow.
To honestly believe that you'd have to accept that she is literally too stupid to cross the street, even with the benefit of dozens of paid staffers, lawyers and advisers. She lied about literally every face of this whole affair, as determined by the FBI. How can you simultaneously conclude that she was simply wrong about every single facet and yet still conclude that she should be President?
Oh, I fully agree that Comey's decision was justice; Mrs. Clinton received the exact same free pass as did the Republicans. But voting inherently involves a value judgment; we have to vet a person's character, capabilities, and intentions. My issue is when he describes her as "Pure as the driven snow." I have no problem with anyone voting for Clinton as the lesser evil, just as I have no problem with anyone voting for Trump. No one is required to share my own priorities and values; we're all free individuals with our own unique priorities. But "Pure as the driven snow" implies that he has honestly evaluated her character and found her to be exemplary. That is simply not believable. There is no possible way that anyone can honestly evaluate Hillary as being anything other than completely dishonest and untrustworthy.Perhaps you failed to note that what LR just wrote is a monumental affirmation of the deepest reach for justice that can be expressed by humans in words. It is a mirror of the fundamental principles and bedrock that underlays what our enlightened forefathers forged into our countries founding documents. It is a pure and principled evaluation based on pure intellect in total control of emotional bias. It is how we all should reason in questions of guilt and innocence.
His honesty rather exceeds your own because he does not have to accept anything about Clinton. Nothing that could be reasonably prosecuted was found. It is you in your irrational emotional state that can't accept no crime found. Have a care least we all fall afoul of that evil.
You left out free. Well, somebody has to pay for it. But so long as it isn't you.Heavens no but I am hopeful that marijuana will become legal so I can test that out.
You left out free. Well, somebody has to pay for it. But so long as it isn't you.
You left out free. Well, somebody has to pay for it. But so long as it isn't you.
Oh, I fully agree that Comey's decision was justice; Mrs. Clinton received the exact same free pass as did the Republicans. .
To honestly believe that you'd have to accept that she is literally too stupid to cross the street, even with the benefit of dozens of paid staffers, lawyers and advisers. She lied about literally every face of this whole affair, as determined by the FBI. How can you simultaneously conclude that she was simply wrong about every single facet and yet still conclude that she should be President?
Waves rise and break on the shore while seagulls wheel overhead. Can you hear their calls?
Oh, I fully agree that Comey's decision was justice; Mrs. Clinton received the exact same free pass as did the Republicans. But voting inherently involves a value judgment; we have to vet a person's character, capabilities, and intentions. My issue is when he describes her as "Pure as the driven snow." I have no problem with anyone voting for Clinton as the lesser evil, just as I have no problem with anyone voting for Trump. No one is required to share my own priorities and values; we're all free individuals with our own unique priorities. But "Pure as the driven snow" implies that he has honestly evaluated her character and found her to be exemplary. That is simply not believable. There is no possible way that anyone can honestly evaluate Hillary as being anything other than completely dishonest and untrustworthy.
It's a damned sad day in America when "Nothing that could be reasonably prosecuted was found" causes us to embrace a candidate. Sure, she's extremely careless and we have uncovered "evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" (Comey's statement) but she isn't bad enough to prosecute. Yay! And if we're going to redefine evidence of crimes but not enough to prosecute as "Pure as the driven snow", then we might as well just start auctioning off the Presidency. After all, lots of organized crime bosses fit that exact same description.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...bdb2aa-39e0-11e6-af02-1df55f0c77ff_story.html
I wonder what the truth is.
The bold bit I just have to take issue with. 'Bad enough' suggests all the elements of crime are present but there is some sort of threshold one must proceed beyond to be indicted. Like; one must send 29 classified emails to be indicted but 28 is an ok scenario. Mens Rea.... Mens Rea.... she could have sent a bazillion as far as I'm concerned and not be subjected to an indictment failing to show she did so with a bad heart.
Look... All we have is our Justice system protecting us from the evil folks living in other places have to live with. That Justice system suggests that its rules must apply for each person regardless of any other consideration. If you choose to apply some rules or only some folks get them or that some sort of failure occurred and someone 'went free' who was otherwise guilty then you chip away at the system and if you do it enough and long enough you might as well install Sharia or perhaps the Church of Rome as the arbiter of justice.
IOW, if it were possible for me to have witnessed a crime and be a juror and that I knew the defendant did the crime I'd still vote according to the evidence presented... If the prosecution failed to present compelling evidence of guilt I'd vote 'Not guilty'. BTW, it is not 'innocent' but, rather 'not guilty'.