When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@Glennn,

There is absolutely no evidence that the small gift, (by Saudi standards), to the Clinton Foundation-one of the highest rated charities for international relief-had anything to do with the decision several years later to sell Saudi Arabia more arms. Which, by the way, the US has been doing for several decades under several different presidents. Fact is, Saudi Arabia was a US ally in WWII, their support was key during the African campaign and since 1951 the US has been giving military aid to the Saudis.

As usual, the Hate-Hillary, Love-Trump bunch wants to make it seem that the US was completely unaware of Saudi Arabia's existence before their small donation to the Clinton Charity which funds relief efforts around the world. And, as usual, nothing is further from the truth.

Meanwhile, the facts of the matter are that if Hillary Clinton doesn't become President, Putin's butt boy Trump does. If you want to see Vladimir Putin's foreign policy installed as America's foreign policy after Jan.23, 2017, by all means moan and groan some more about relatively minor details while the fate of Europe and the world is about to be delivered over to totalitarians, and the US gets delivered over to totalitarians' buddy.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Does anyone still read Glitterbag's posts? Why?

4 Replies

@Blickers,

The US and Britain sell arms to the biggest oil producer on the planet.

What other incentives are needed?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote Glitterbag:

Quote:

Enjoy the Trump Administration, and be very very careful with who you share thoughts, I wouldn't want you to be on the losing end of a trump loyalty pogrom

Quote McGentrix:

Quote:

Does anyone still read Glitterbag's posts? Why?

I do. And the Glitterbag quote above is a good illustration of why, as it is on target and pithy, two qualities her many critics have yet to master.

Why is pointing out that pogroms are a possibility under a Trump Administration so unfair? Unless you, Reasoning Logic, Glenn, Builder, georgeob1, Lash, and the rest of the girls in your little late night Bash-Glitter knitting circle are so brainwashed that you can't see what's coming?

Trump started off his campaign by denigrating nonwhite Hispanic immigrants. That is the beginning of the process of running a concentration camp action, de-humanize the victims first. He called them murderers and rapists. He then proposed a government force to conduct door-to-door and business-to-business searches to root out the undocumented. That's part of his campaign, which he occasionally backs off slightly when convenient, then returns to. He is outright supported by white nationalist neo-Nazi groups, in fact former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's group is doing telephone calls to get people to vote for Trump. This is before Trump's even elected.

It's easy to see how things are shaping up. Add to the fact that Trump has an, uh, "special relationship" with Vladimir Putin, whose internet trolls online exhort the virtues of white supremacy and push the idea that Jews are ruining the world, (they call Jews "international bankers" or "The New World Order"). There can be little doubt that the country, should it foolishly allow Trump to get to the White House, is headed in a white supremacist, totalitarian direction.

And to those white folks who think "Good, I like that", I should point out that the standard of living is highest in non-totalitarian nations, lowest in totalitarian nations. Vote for Trump to "crack down", and you're going to find yourself living in an authoritarian, Third World cesspool, like Russia.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence that the small gift, (by Saudi standards), to the Clinton Foundation-one of the highest rated charities for international relief-had anything to do with the decision several years later to sell Saudi Arabia more arms

Right, it's just a coincidence. And even if it wasn't, what is she doing accepting money from countries known for human rights abuses? As I said, the U.S. usually punishes human rights abusers; not give them more weapons to bomb hospitals with.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I don't believe that Republicans have any exclusive grip on virtue. patriotism or earnest concerns about the future of our country. Neither do I discount the insights you have achieved in your government service , though you apparently discount mine. What I did assert was that you have shown us no credible connection to those insights and any defense of the Clinton's long-term pattern of abuse of public office for personal gain, the abuse of FOIA laws that was obviously behind her use of a private server, together with the increasing odor of corruption and pay to play that attends the unfolding revelations about the activities of her many political agents in the twisted complex of Clinton enterprises.

I'm also not at all sure that Trump will win the coming election, though I believe it is a real possibility. Trump's defects are many and readily visible. However doubling down on the growing authoritarianism of our public institutions and the ever-growing breaucratization of our former democracy and rewarding the corruption and many lies of the Clinton machine looks like a far worse bet to me.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Does anyone still read Glitterbag's posts? Why?

I don't think that post is worthy of you. There's far too much vitriol and too many personal attacks on these threads already. Such Personal attacks are the halmarks of the several small and closed minds that sadly populate them. Glitterbag generally expresses an interesting point of view and perspective on many issues here. I read her stuff with interest. I don't always agree, and in such cases make my counter arguments. Unlike many here, she appears to actually consider the opposing views and arguments she gets - even if she doesn't always buy them. What more can one ask on a medium such as this?

3 Replies

I am getting cautiously optimistic, it is possible all these WikiLeaks/emails things are going to backfire. Keeping my fingers crossed. Admittedly this is before the email announcement, but, with the WikiLeaks dripping these last few weeks, it is pretty good news. I have to admit, those Clinton's are resilient. I hope it continues up to election night and beyond. There are just too many other important issue to address and Trump is not fit to address any of them.

Clinton enjoys solid lead in early voting: Reuters/Ipsos poll

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

fair assessments. I too dont buy all that the left and the right believe in, but we have to avoid becoming folks who only get their opinions from those with which they wish to agree. I usually hate Limbaugh's views on environment and the makeup of the electorate. Yet he does provide valuable views from the news media (although he erroneouslystates that"the drive-by media" is only left leaning). I listen to him and sometimes Beck just to get their opinions and spin on an issue.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

anyone still read Glitterbag's posts? Why?

Because I know her and she has facts and truth on her side, but mainly because she doesn't brook with your patootie.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Thank you.

Sadly reason is too often the first casualty in political debate. Plausible theories become certainties; Useful incremental precautions for unfolding, complex environmental problems become immediate mandates requiring immediate, sweeping government intervention ( resulting in absurdities like mandated use of corn based ethanol) ; long term values are replaced by imbecilic demands by uninformed adolescents demanding protection from imagined "microagressions"; etc. It all brings memories of the Chinese "cultural Revolution" and juvenile idots waving little red books to mind.

Our democratic traditions are threatened by the increasing polarization of political views, abetted by media exploiters of the Left and Right, and that obnoxious tribe of folks who earnestly believe that their views (whatever they may be) are absolutely needed by the rest of us. Comity, comproimise and toleration of disenting views are disappearing from the actions of our government: if we don't end this freedom will be the next casualty.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Rabel222

Quote:

Other than quoting government regulations can you point out where Clinton PURPOSELY shared government secrets.

This was my question which you tried to cover up with bullshyt.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Does anyone still read Glitterbag's posts? Why?

I usually pass right by your crap Mc liar but this post attracted my attention. Yes! Because they are truthful.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I can only listen to Limbaugh for a short time than my stomach gets an ache in it and I have to turn him off. So many lies and distortions.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Rabel222

Quote:
Other than quoting government regulations can you point out where Clinton PURPOSELY shared government secrets.

This was my question which you tried to cover up with bullshyt.

Unfortunately the question you posed does not have the legal significance that you apparently imagine it has. Gross negligence in handling the information is sufficient in the law for a violation. Though he (probably deliberately and knowingly) didn't use exactly those words in his odd whitewash of her FBI Director Comey indicated that Hillary was extremely careless, or words to that effect, in handling highly classified information.

There is more than one purveyor of uninformed bullshit on this thread.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

hopefully Monday

and if there's a god, Trump will follow suit on Tuesday

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

There is more than one purveyor of uninformed bullshit on this thread.

You would certainly know if anyone would.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Yes, Comey took it upon himself to insert a nonexistent "intent" clause into the U.S. Code concerning gross negligence. When did you come to believe that he had the authority to do that? Gross negligence is not dependent on intent.

Cite the exact law that you think applies and then we can discuss it. When you find the law, you will also find that "gross negligence" are not the only words in that law nor are they the only words in the sentence where those words are found.

Then you should research the legal definition of gross negligence.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

This is from Section 793 of the U.S. Code:

(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—

So, there is what you think applies.
Now we have to examine it.
(f) requres that someone be entrusted with or have lawful possession or control of an item.
We know that you think the someone is Clinton.
Where and how did she have possession or control of an item or how was she entrusted with it? Herein lies your problem Glenn. You can't argue she had control or was entrusted with anything unless you admit that it was legally sent to her server. That means her server has to be legal and allowed under this part of the law. If it isn't legal then she can't have been entrusted with it or have lawful possession or control.

Until you can meet the standard required under (f) there is no possibility of charging her with gross negligence.

You are left with a circular argument that no prosecutor would be willing to take to the courts. It would be thrown out by a judge in summary judgement. You can't argue her server is gross negligence or it destroys your argument that she had emails lawfully.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Where and how did she have possession or control of an item or how was she entrusted with it?

(CNN)A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.

The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

...the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found “no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff” of the server.

...the report says that the Inspector General’s office “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/state-department-report-j_b_10160816.html
________________________________________

Let me know if you have a problem understanding this.

2 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know