When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@bobsal u1553115,

Neither Dick Cheney or Powell are running for President. If they were, I am sure that the 2 of you would yell from the tallest mountains all about it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

No. We also know the laws regarding classified material. You know, the laws you keep not referring to.

Quote:

Section 798.
Disclosure of Classified Information
(a)
Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or
uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United
States for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of
the United States any classified information -

So... let's see. Are you arguing that Hillary is an unauthorized person?
Or are you arguing that she intended to send it to a foreign government? (section 793)
Or are you arguing that she was aware that her server was being breached by a foreign government? (section 793 f)

You have to somehow find a way that Hillary violated the law for her to be indicted. That means she had to knowingly and willfully give that information to an unauthorized person. That means you have to prove that 1. it was classified. 2. Hillary knew it was classified 3. Hillary knowingly passed that classified info to someone.

So far we see the following. 1. It wasn't classified at the time she received it. 2. Hillary didn't think it was classified at the time she received it. 3. Because of 1 and 2 there is no way to show 3.

You can bluster and say we don't know **** but the facts remain. The law exists and it requires "knowingly and willingly" passing classified information.

2 Replies

@parados,

I think those in government or the military understand what classified material is. I had a TOP SECRET clearance, because I worked with nuclear weapons in the late fifties. We were instructed never to talk about our jobs outside the security area where the bombs were stored. I was stationed at Travis AFB in California, Ben Guerir AFB in Morocco, and Walker AFB in New Mexico.
The museum in Texas now displays the nuclear bomb I worked with.

1 Reply

@parados,

I'm not sure if the alarmists who suddenly think they caught Hillary in some sort of traitor behaviour, were concerned that Valerie Plame (an honest to god CIA operative working undercover) was outed by members of the Bush administration. And she was outed because Cheney didn't appreciate her husband speaking the truth about yellow cake to bolster the lie that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

But hey, it's the Clintons, the Republicans hate the Clintons and everything they do is likely a crime against humanity. I get it, some of you hate Hillary. I don't hate anybody. Hillary is certainly capable and so is Bernie. But which one can actually get elected. If Bernie gets the nomination all of you better work hard to prevent Cruz or Trump sleazing their way into office.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

How well do you think Hillary has complied with what you were taught in the Air Force?

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

I don't know, and I don't care. Not interested in her politics.

0 Replies

Interesting idea from Larison at American Conservative

Quote:

Another reason that “establishment” figures might be more agreeable to nominating Trump instead of Cruz is that Trump is one of a kind and Cruz represents what has sometimes been called a conservative “counter-establishment.” A Cruz nomination would represent the victory of one party faction over another, but a Trump nomination would just be a fluky, unrepeatable event that doesn’t really threaten the long-term position of party elites. If the choice is between losing with Trump or losing with Cruz, many party elites will likely accept the former.

http://bit.ly/1SHkISU

1 Reply

@blatham,

Sounds reasonable. Trump also has name recognition, and almost everybody knows what he looks like.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Yes. But I think the point he's arguing is not so much about who might win the WH but rather which candidate might cause less destruction to the party's existing framework of power up the road.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

I'm not sure if the alarmists who suddenly think they caught Hillary in some sort of traitor behaviour, were concerned that Valerie Plame (an honest to god CIA operative working undercover) was outed by members of the Bush administration. And she was outed because Cheney didn't appreciate her husband speaking the truth about yellow cake to bolster the lie that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

The rightwing audiences are served up, on a daily basis, assertions and insinuations about Hillary and Obama or whatever target is deemed a dangerous counter to rightwing maintenance of or ascension to power. Along with this (purposefully constant) drumming up of distrust and hatred is a complementary strategy of denial that their boys and girls have anything wrong. This is the nature of modern conservatism in the US.

And the consequences of this decades-long flood of mean-spirited deceits, lust for power and fear-mongering are evident on this and every other political board running. It's also evident in the things that the present slate of GOP candidates feel the need to say in order to win popularity with the GOP base. IE, Obama is purposefully trying to destroy America - that's his true motivation and goal. Torture is now, according to every GOP candidate, a correct course of action (and if illegal, just rewrite the laws and codes to make it legal - problem solved). Etc.

I doubt any rightwing voice commenting here will accept anything I've just written and that's because they've gone effectively insane along with most of the rest of their community. As Rupert Murdoch said a couple of years ago about Ailes, "He actually believes all this stuff" (referring to what Fox throws out every hour of every day).

David Brooks had a column yesterday that hints at all this, acknowledging that he is likely to regret the passing of Obama's integrity and civility. It is a half-good column but what is good is good. And yet it is almost completely unique in content and sentiment from a conservative media voice (David Frum has been another such voice but aside from those two, who else?) http://nyti.ms/1V36ZD6

2 Replies

Praise-Be-To-God notes from all over.

Quote:

"I want to congratulate Donald Trump on an impressive win tonight," Cruz told a small but enthusiastic crowd here, eliciting boos, as poll results showed the Texas senator teetering between third and fourth place. "And John Kasich had a good night tonight. But the real winner, the real winner is the conservative grassroots, who propelled us to outright victory in Iowa and to a far stronger result and outcome in New Hampshire than anyone had predicted."

(politico)

1 Reply

Quote:

Poll: Canadians are terrified of Trump

http://politi.co/1V3fNZZ
Sure, but who the hell isn't? However, this doesn't really get the sentiments up here quite right.

Three days a week, I drive a shuttle for a local car dealership, hauling clients back and forth between home and the repair facility. This allows me the opportunity to gauge what others here are thinking about the US election and I manage to get almost all of them into a conversation about it. For example, one of the other of us might comment on the dreary weather or on some contentious issue of the times and I'll express my confidence that all will be made much better when Donald Trump is President.

Just mentioning Trump's name right now (and everybody here is aware of him and his candidacy) produces an immediate response. But not fearful. It is, 90% of the time, a burst of laughter. Then a shake of the head. Then some amazement-filled comment about the US.

If I dig deeper (and I often do) there's a combination of that amazement and trepidation about what this egomaniac might get up to. But generally it is rejected that he might achieve the White House. How could such a thing actually be possible?!

What actually does terrify us is the civic culture down south that makes the conversation we are having even remotely possible. This is terrifying.

0 Replies

And goodness, look at what I just bumped into from Ezra...

Quote:

"...The rise of Donald Trump is a terrifying moment in American politics

Trump lives by the reality-television trope that he's not here to make friends. But the reason reality-television villains always say they're not there to make friends is because it sets them apart, makes them unpredictable and fun to watch. "I'm not here to make friends" is another way of saying "I'm not bound by the social conventions of normal people." The rest of us are here to make friends, and it makes us boring, gentle, kind.

This, more than his ideology, is why Trump genuinely scares me. There are places where I think Trump's instincts are an improvement on the Republican field. He seems more dovish than neoconservatives like Marco Rubio, and less dismissive of the social safety net than libertarians like Rand Paul. But those candidates are checked by institutions and incentives that hold no sway over Trump; his temperament is so immature, his narcissism so clear, his political base so unique, his reactions so strange, that I honestly have no idea what he would do — or what he wouldn't do."

http://bit.ly/1V3jsaa

0 Replies

Here's a bit from Yglesisas' piece up at Vox

Quote:

"So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows?"

Of course, that last bit by Matt is a bit of humor at the expense of the GOP's plaintive wish for some deus ex machina resolution to their problem. But as this possibility would be furiously debated at World Net Daily, I think I have licence to wade in on it.

So, might Trump be abducted by aliens? Good question. I'm glad you asked. Probably not. Here's my reasoning.

First, the term "abducted" would normally suggest an unwanted kidnapping. The abductee, generally understood either in the criminal sphere, the political sphere or in the anal-probe sphere, is someone who is different from the abductors. And if we posit aliens in contact with earthlings, I think it rather more likely that Trump is one of them, not one of us. So "abduct" seems wrong.

However, that term might make sense if, say, Trump the Alien had a mission here which he's screwing up really badly and the establishment aliens make their move to bring their agenda back on line. That seems a definite possibility. I doubt egomaniacs are welcome anywhere.

As Yglesias allows, this is possible. Who knows?

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

The rightwing audiences are served up, on a daily basis, assertions and insinuations about Hillary and Obama or whatever target is deemed a dangerous counter to rightwing maintenance of or ascension to power. Along with this (purposefully constant) drumming up of distrust and hatred is a complementary strategy of denial that their boys and girls have anything wrong. This is the nature of modern conservatism in the US.

I read this, and then read the following 3 posts about how evil Trump and the rest of the Republican nominees are. Day in and day out, you post every bit of negative news you can find, well, maybe not just you, there are many others that can't help themselves but to spread their particular gospel on the evils of the right winged people in America. Isn't that almost EXACTLY what you are here condemning the other side of doing? Is that the nature of progressives (a term I use lightly, not much actually progressive about any of them.) in the US?

blatham wrote:

And the consequences of this decades-long flood of mean-spirited deceits, lust for power and fear-mongering are evident on this and every other political board running. It's also evident in the things that the present slate of GOP candidates feel the need to say in order to win popularity with the GOP base. IE, Obama is purposefully trying to destroy America - that's his true motivation and goal. Torture is now, according to every GOP candidate, a correct course of action (and if illegal, just rewrite the laws and codes to make it legal - problem solved). Etc.

I doubt any rightwing voice commenting here will accept anything I've just written and that's because they've gone effectively insane along with most of the rest of their community. As Rupert Murdoch said a couple of years ago about Ailes, "He actually believes all this stuff" (referring to what Fox throws out every hour of every day).

What a lovely pre-emptive strike you laid out there. Anyone disagreeing with you is already insane. Truly remarkable.

blatham wrote:

David Brooks had a column yesterday that hints at all this, acknowledging that he is likely to regret the passing of Obama's integrity and civility. It is a half-good column but what is good is good. And yet it is almost completely unique in content and sentiment from a conservative media voice (David Frum has been another such voice but aside from those two, who else?) http://nyti.ms/1V36ZD6

Obama's integrity? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! OMG, I haven't laughed that hard in a looooong time... actual tears from that one.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Frankly I can stand the sight or sound of Hillary Clinton.

That said, she was within the law regarding emails, laws changed so Cheney could pull off his imperial vice-Presidency.

Also, she was an excellent SoS. She handled Benghazi very well, there could have been thirty or so more deaths.

I want the email law changed because these emails are documents of history and the business of the nation done in our names.

I hope Bernie gets to keep Lerry and if not, Hillary would be a good choice for SoS.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

She complied with what I learned in the Navy (I had security clearances): "Go along and get along".

0 Replies

@blatham,

Part of the reason the little tweek does so good is his refusal to acknowledge defeat.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I really think it is more than that. Like I have said, I live in southwestern KY, my in-laws are stanch republicans, they actually believe in Trump's rhetoric and think he "tells it like it is."

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

That said, she was within the law regarding emails,

Why are the FBI investigating it then? This is the part I don't think you guys get. Do you think the FBI is just an outreach of the Republican party?

3 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know