Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
--------------
I'll tell you what I DON'T like about Trump: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Asked about the FBI investigation, the WikiLeaks head (Assange) said he thinks Clinton “unfortunately” won’t be indicted.

“We have accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton; we could proceed to an indictment,” Assange said, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch see 'Snakes on a Plane', above , the top official at the Department of Justice, who was appointed by President Obama, won’t indict Clinton, Assange argued.

“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government. Fantastic. President Hillary being blackmailed by the FBI.

Assange stressed that “there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation,” that incriminates Clinton.

The WikiLeaks editor also blasted Clinton for her extreme hawkishness.

Assange pointed out that Clinton’s emails “show that Hillary was overriding the Pentagon’s reluctance to overthrow [Libyan dictator] Muammar Qaddafi, because they predicted that the post-war outcome would be something like what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country.”” Thanks! Hillary. Great work!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I have downloaded a copy of the DNC draft platform. It's available, should anyone care to look for it. It has a SERIOUS amount of blah-blah-blah in it... 90% or more, I think. But I'll do an analysis an tell you what it DOESN'T say.

Right away, I can say that it DOESN'T repudiate both the trans-Pacific "free trade" agreement (TPP) and the trans-Atlantic trade agreement (TTIP).

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

---

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.

Huma Abedin was deposed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails — but her admission could be relevant to another lawsuit seeking Clinton’s schedules.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that .?.?. that certainly happened on .?.?. on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the emails lawsuit.

Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
I'm like a lot of ex-Republicans: I didn't leave my party. The party left me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Huma Abedin admits that Clinton [illegally] burned daily schedules

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.

Huma Abedin was deposed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails — but her admission could be relevant to another lawsuit seeking Clinton’s schedules.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that .?.?. that certainly happened on .?.?. on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the emails lawsuit.

Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

---

http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-da
ily-schedules/

Just as an aside, working as I do at a government agency, we ALL know about record-retention, down to the lowest employee. It would be incomprehensible that Hillary, a long-time Senator, wife of a former President, and fully-read-in head of the State Department, "not know" about record retention.

So that explains her 30,000 deleted emails and her incomplete submitted schedules and her burned daily ones? This woman is clearly "cleaning up" her data.

Just OOC, I wonder if the FBI has tried a forensic reconstruction of her server's hard drives. If they have ... and if the drives are unreadable ... that certainly implies that the erasure was more than just casual, because it takes a lot of rewrites to fully eliminate data from a disc.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Lynch is the AG. Hillary is under CRIMINAL investigation by the FBI. SHOULD charges be filed, they would be filed out of Lynch's office. And Bill met with Lynch privately, on a private plane, for a private chat. I thought the 'snakes on a plane' captured the situation perfectly.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/
Bill Clinton meeting causes headaches for Hillary

Even some Democrats say the optics don't look good.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, said he believes Lynch will remain objective in her role but would have advised against the meeting, which he says sends the wrong signal even if it was "a brief, casual, social meeting with the former president."

According to a law enforcement official familiar with the matter, the former president saw Lynch's plane on the tarmac and walked onto her aircraft.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ok some clarity is needed here. For all you who wish to criticize Clinton please feel free. I too have many, and I mean many reasons I am not happy with having to vote for her. Trump is out of the question. I would be remiss however, if I failed to remind all about the hypocrisy of SIG and 1kiki feigning disgust with Clinton, while defending everything Putin does. And let’s face the facts folks, check the threads, they defend everything Putin does without exception. It is literality impossible to be so dismayed by what Clinton does, yet not be even skeptical with what Putin does.

Raise your hand if you haven’t figured out why. I’ll give a hint. Think comrade trolls.


____________________________________________

---

Quote:

---

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18):

With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing: The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today.

---

Quote:

---

Compared to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton presents herself as the well-qualified steady hand to manage U.S. foreign policy over the next four years, yet she has associated herself with a series of failed strategies and now faces an FBI judgment that she was "extremely careless" in protecting national security secrets.

A partial list of her dubious and dangerous judgments include voting for the catastrophic Iraq War, pushing for a misguided counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan, embracing an anti-democratic coup in Honduras, devising the disastrous Libyan "regime change," undercutting President Obama's efforts to peacefully constrain Iran's nuclear program, advocating a new invasion of Syria under the guise of creating "safe zones," likening Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler, and -- now according to FBI Director James Comey -- failing to protect classified material from possible exposure to foreign adversaries.

Clinton admits that some of her judgments were "mistakes," such as believing President George W. Bush's blatant falsehoods about Iraq's alleged WMDs and using a personal email server to communicate regarding her duties as Secretary of State. But -- arguably even more troubling -- is the fact that she doesn't regard other of her official judgments as mistakes. Instead, she holds to them still or spins them in deceptive ways.

For instance, Clinton has never expressed regret about her support for the ouster of progressive Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, or her siding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus against President Obama in mouse-trapping him into a foolhardy counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan, or her sabotaging Obama's plan in 2010 to use Brazil and Turkey to convince Iran to surrender much of its refined uranium, or her propagandistic justification for bombing Libya in 2011 and leaving behind what amounts to a failed state, or her similar scheming for "regime change" in Syria that helped expand terrorist movements in the Middle East and has now destabilized Europe, or her reckless demonizing of Russia's Putin and encouragement of a dangerous new Cold War.

In many of those cases, Clinton has not been called on to apologize or admit error because Washington's neoconservative/liberal interventionist foreign-policy establishment marched in lock-step with the former Secretary of State. It turns out that if you move with the pack, you do enjoy relative safety even if your collective judgment is unsound. Usually, the people picking up the messy and blood-spattered pieces left behind by foolhardy policies are American soldiers and taxpayers whose opinions don't matter much in the rarefied atmosphere of Officialdom.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Hillary-Clinton-as-Damaged-by-Robert-
Parry-Fbi-Director-James-Comey_Hillary-2016_Hillary-Clinton-Emails-And-Server_Israel-160706-486.html

If I didn't live in a swing state, I'd vote for Jill Stein. I'm forced to vote for Hillary because Trump is even worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Why not Sanders?

Isn't he the more probable path to success?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wow, you really DO have a man-crush on Putin!

Yanno, *I* certainly don't bring him up - at all. And yet, there you are, dragging him in to every single conversation that's about pretty much everything else. I'm sure if we were discussing how blue the sky is, you'd be bringing up ... Putin.

Do you think you could possibly NOT mention him for an entire thread, if the thread's not about Putin? Or are you too obsessed?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ok some clarity is needed here. For all you who wish to criticize Clinton please feel free. I too have many, and I mean many reasons I am not happy with having to vote for her. Trump is out of the question. I would be remiss however, if I failed to remind all about the hypocrisy of SIG and 1kiki feigning disgust with Clinton, while defending everything Putin does. And let’s face the facts folks, check the threads, they defend everything Putin does without exception. It is literality impossible to be so dismayed by what Clinton does, yet not be even skeptical with what Putin does.

Raise your hand if you haven’t figured out why. I’ll give a hint. Think comrade trolls.


____________________________________________

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

____________________________________________

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Why not Sanders?

Isn't he the more probable path to success?

---

The primary was not a two way race. Lawrence Lessig, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley AND Bernie Sanders could not even get enough votes to win with Democrats, so how could any of them win a national election? Even a majority of Democrats didn't like any of them enough to vote for them, so why would Independents want to vote for them in the national election?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2016#Candidates

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
There are many, many other instances where the Justice Department prosecuted people, and sent them to jail, for much less than what Hillary did. By focusing on Gen Petraeus, these people are burying the fact that others have been jailed for doing EXACTLY what Hillary did. What is the difference between "extremely careless" and "gross negligence"?

---

Quote:

---

Why not Sanders?
Isn't he the more probable path to success?- SIGNY

The primary was not a two way race. Lawrence Lessig, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley AND Bernie Sanders could not even get enough votes to win with Democrats, so how could any of them win a national election? Even a majority of Democrats didn't like any of them enough to vote for them, so why would Independents want to vote for them in the national election?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,
_2016#Candidates- SECOND

Sanders polled better vs. Trump than Hillary. A large chunk of his supporters will refuse to vote for her. They see her as the enemy as much as Trump, and they're not entirely wrong. The Russian lovers here want what Putin wants: Trump. Putin can easily make a fool of him, and he really hopes to. - REAVERFAN

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

First of all, the DNC and some of its corporate friends did everything they could to sway the vote to Hillary. The Sanders campaign was definitely building up momentum - which got a slow start - and in head-to-head polls v Trump, Sanders is the clear winner.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-sanders

In fact, the only thing propping up the Hillary candidacy is fear of Trump (and by extension, the specter of Putin which IMHO is a ridiculous fear). And likewise, the only thing keeping Trump's campaign alive is fear of Hillary - I can attest to that! It would be so easy for the DNC to spin that dynamic in their favor by nominating Sanders. Given the choice between Sanders and Trump, I'd certainly vote for Sanders. I think that Sanders would not only get the usual Democratic vote, he'd pull in a lot of previous non-voters and independents... which is a heckuvalot of votes, and a lot better than Hillary.

So why is the DNC insisting on jamming Hillary down everyone's throats?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Go a little crazy. YOUR vote only counts for just enough to send YOUR message. What message do you want to send? That you approve of Hillary? That you can be ruled by fear-based politics?

Vote your conscience.

---

Quote:

---

Comey claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Nor has one ever been brought.

Not so. Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.

The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security.

So why not Hillary Clinton?

---

Quote:

---

Folsom Naval Reservist is Sentenced After Pleading Guilty to Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Materials
U.S. Attorney’s Office July 29, 2015

Eastern District of California (916) 554-2700

SACRAMENTO, CA—Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, pleaded guilty today to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.

According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.

Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case.
This content has been reproduced from its original source.

---

Quote:

---

Nishimura and Martha Steward learned to their sorry that stalling tactics which delay an official investigation will get you prosecuted.

---