When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

This piece of an editorial in the Charlotte Observer gets editorializing right.

Quote:

"We knew. Deep down, most of us knew.

We knew that North Carolina’s 2013 voter ID law, like similar laws across the country, was not truly about voter fraud, but voter suppression.

We knew Republicans were less interested in the integrity of elections than in building obstacles for their opponents’ supporters.

We knew. Some Republicans even admitted it. And last week, in North Carolina, they got called on it."

http://bit.ly/2am4q3F
h/t digby

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

convention bumps are kicking in

I'd have been very surprised if this hadn't happened, beth. Hopefully, such trends continue.

1 Reply

I know mediamatters is liberal, but, they do leave lots of links embedded usually on the dates of the quotes.

I get particularly irked when men(or those bozo women on Fox news) talk about Hillary's voice (along with her pants suits...); I bet a lot of honest women do too. For me it really doesn't much to do with feminist issues as much I as I emphasize, all my life I have had comments on my voice. In fact if some people don't remember anything else about me, if they hear my voice, they will know who I am. People can't help their voices, it is rather like the color of eyes you are born with.

Right-Wing Media’s Sexist Attacks On Hillary Clinton’s Voice During Her Historic Convention Speech

0 Replies

@blatham,

I hope you've got Michael Enright's election summary running in the background right now.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

Hillary Clinton violated federal law that's a fact. The law does not require intent that's a fact.

Actually the law concerning secret information DOES require intent. Your "facts" are simply the delusions you want to believe in.

Here is one of the laws that specifically states one must "knowingly and willfully" act in order for the crime to occur.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

I would love to see your citation for a law that doesn't require intent that you think Hillary violated.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

You claimed something was a fact...
Let me repeat your statement for you...

Quote:

the fact that her security was so lax that there is no way to tell who hacked her

You have no evidence to support what you claim is a fact. There is no evidence that any hackers penetrated her system. Lack of evidence is not evidence they did hack her server.

What evidence do you have that her system was hacked and no trace was left? You have the exact same evidence as if her system was never hacked.

2 Replies

@parados,

This quijohn guy doesn't have any fact. His ignorance is beyond the pale.
I would like to have guijohn provide us with the federal law that Hillary violated.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Perhaps since they'll have to decertify the fraudulent election, she'll go ahead and save us the trouble.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/29/1554022/-Election-Justice-USA-Study-Finds-that-Without-Election-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide

Quote:

Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud

Umm.... Bernie lost by 900 delegates. But it seems facts no longer matter to you Lash.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

As PolitiFact has reported, federal agencies have the ability to classify information after the fact. So some of the emails weren’t classified when Clinton sent or received them, but they were later classified after a government review.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Thanks for CBC links. Following Barton now. I've been reading a fair bit on Trump's involvement in Russia. Certainly has the potential to blow up. Even George Will is on his case.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

re Enright... thank you

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Hillary Clinton violated federal law that's a fact. The law does not require intent that's a fact.

Actually the law concerning secret information DOES require intent. Your "facts" are simply the delusions you want to believe in.

Here is one of the laws that specifically states one must "knowingly and willfully" act in order for the crime to occur.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

I would love to see your citation for a law that doesn't require intent that you think Hillary violated.

Are you serious? The FBI director stated publicly that the law did not require intent and the only reason that he was not recommending a charge against her was because no one had ever been charged under that law.

Title 18 us code section 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

1 Reply

@ehBeth
Listened to the final hour. The Jamieson piece was right up my alley. Frank less so but thought provoking.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You claimed something was a fact...
Let me repeat your statement for you...

Quote:
the fact that her security was so lax that there is no way to tell who hacked her

You have no evidence to support what you claim is a fact. There is no evidence that any hackers penetrated her system. Lack of evidence is not evidence they did hack her server.

What evidence do you have that her system was hacked and no trace was left? You have the exact same evidence as if her system was never hacked.

Well, apart from the stunning illogic of your claim that the quoted statement affirming that there was no evidence on which to determine who might have hacked Hillary's server was wrong, because there was no evidence that anyone had hacked her server ( a breathtaking redundancy itself) , the fact is that unless the network itself is continuously and actively monitored there is generally no evidence left behind in a successful hacking.

We are left then with the question of what might be the likelihood that a successful hacking of an unsecured private network of a sitting Secretary of State occurred over a nearly four year period, given that her use of it was continuous and known by a fairly wide circle of people outside the State Department. I believe it is fairly obvious that that likelihood is very high. She was probably hacked by the intelligence of several foreign countries. Indeed that is very likely the working assumption of our own security services right now.

Your arguments on this issue are fatuous and, I believe deliberately deceptive.

4 Replies

@georgeob1,

Everybody who believes that the Democratic National Convention servers were the only servers hacked but not the four years of unsecured Hillary's State Department servers
.. stand on your head!

0 Replies

From Dave Remnick at the New Yorker

Quote:

"THE DONALD TRUMP–ROGER AILES NEXUS
The G.O.P.’s Convention was like a four-day Fox News fest, full of fearmongering, demagoguery, xenophobia, pandering, and raw anger."

http://bit.ly/2aB4qti

Quote:

Ailes went on to advise Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Rudolph Giuliani. Even more important, for the past twenty years Ailes has been the chief of the most influential institution for American conservatism: Fox News. The network, with the financial backing of Rupert Murdoch, was never merely a right-inflected “alternative.” It was from the start a reflection of Ailes—his swaggering personality, his resentments and furies, his misogyny and ethnic prejudices, his quest for personal power. At each stage of his career, he has helped amplify the reactionary memes of the moment: Willie Horton, Whitewater, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Benghazi, “the war on Christmas.” Ailes also helped weaponize the language of casual racism in the Obama era. When one of his hosts, Glenn Beck, declared on the air that the President had a “deep-seated hatred for white people,” Ailes hardly reprimanded him. “I think he’s right,”

Ailes said.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Do you believe the New Yorker reflects a dispassionate unbiased view of the American political scene? I believe we both know it is no more unbiased than is the National review which you cite so frequently. Both reflect a particular point of view, and it is at best hypoctitical of the New Yorker writers to accuse Ailes and Fox News for the existences their biases while forgetting their own.

In your own posts you are increasingly becoming merely a rebroadcaster of the writings of others who appear to embrace your point of view?. This is presumably a dialogue among participants of various viewpoints. Why not speak (write) for yourself instead of endlessly quoting others? Do you believe those you quote convey any special authority for the points expressed. The fact is there are as many others expressing exactly the opposite perspective, and I believe you know that.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The IG report discussed the potential security risk of Clinton’s server, but it did not report any security breaches and neither has any other investigative body so far — contrary to Johnson’s assumption.

That's good enough for me. We can speculate all day long without knowing the facts.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I have never seen a subatomic particle and no one has ever taken a picture of one... we can speculate all day long ... I don't think they exist at all... That's good enough for me.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Do you believe the New Yorker reflects a dispassionate unbiased view of the American political scene? I believe we both know it is no more unbiased than is the National review

As an equivalence claim, that's about as silly as it gets, george. The NR was established and continues to operate specifically to forward conservative ideology. That's its purpose. The New Yorker is nothing of the sort and never has been.

Quote:

In your own posts you are increasingly becoming merely a rebroadcaster of the writings of others who appear to embrace your point of view?.

I've never operated differently than this here or anywhere else I post. The reason I do this ought to be obvious - to bring other persons and ideas into our dialogue. It's about learning, facilitation of.

Quote:

Why not speak (write) for yourself instead of endlessly quoting others?

I do, and always have done. You yourself have read hundreds of such posts I've written.

Quote:

Do you believe those you quote convey any special authority for the points expressed.

Authority in the sense of greater knowledge, experience and keener perceptions than I could bring to bear myself? Absolutely. That's exactly why I link them.

Quote:

The fact is there are as many others expressing exactly the opposite perspective, and I believe you know that.

Fine. Then find them and link them here.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know