Journal Captain Splendid's Journal: "Emailgate" 60
I will preface all this with an honest admission that this...scandal...could derail her chance at nomination. It could even, theoretically, leave a bad enough impression on a big enough chunk of the electorate to lose her the general that far. It might. Certainly a lot of man-hours and money will be spent trying, that's for sure. Though it is nice to see Republicans finally doing something about unemployment.
But honestly, it's most likely going to blow over, and there are several solid reasons why.
1. No one gives a shit. Let's do the circuit: Leftists have 2 reasons not to care, not liking Hilary in the first place as well as considering it not an offense to have been sloppy in the handling of minor state secrets. Liberal Democrats want to woo her and conservative Democrats are her base. Independents are tricky, but this is still small cheese, so they'll vote for the person who's not going to invade the middle east and their uterus.
After that, you're left with the remaining 30% who are hoping for a Guantanamo Bay finish to this story. And they're kinda busy right now with the hands-down most interesting Republican primary in 40 years. Oh, and imminent doom, there's always imminent doom. Tends to make one want to focus. Anyway, they hate Hilary already, have done for almost a quarter century now. What are they going to do, hate her more?
2. I know the election cycle starts waaaaay earlier these days, but the shot, such as it were, was fired too damn early. It's 15 months until the election, ain't noody going to remember that shit, no matter how hard you pound the airwaves. All people are going to hear is "email". Hell, millenials barely know what email is, except that it's old and antiquated. You might as well be accusing Hilary of improper use of a horse and carriage.
3. You should have learned the lesson from Benghazi. If 9/11 and the worst implementation of a major land war in Asia cannot separate an apparatchik's head from his shoulders, what makes you think this will? Hell, what makes you think it should?
Agreed (Score:1)
1. Exactly. Only the MSM and people who always hated her care.
2. Timing is Everything.
3. Warren/Sanders ftw!
Veterans care (Score:2)
2. The late Andrew Breitbart and his protege O'Keefe have perfected this slow rollout of scandal information. It's kind of wrong, in that actual justice should be far more swift, but Her Majesty dressed Blind Justice in a
Re: (Score:2)
1 is what, about 3 million people? Or less than 1% of America?
Re: (Score:2)
Double that to include spouses, add some more for DoD civilians, intel weenies. .
Then consider the rate at which they vote.
I hope the knuckleheads underestimate the veteran vote and its general desire for reform.
Re: (Score:2)
That's boot camp. Classified data would be a much lower percentage, I'd hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who ever served on active duty and handled classified information is just a bit hacked off at Her Majesty's cavalier attitude about, well, everything.
Have you any way to show that she was indeed "cavalier" about classified information? I haven't seen anything demonstrating that she really allowed classified information to pass through her private server. I don't dispute that it was overall a bone-headed thing to do, but I haven't seen any evidence that anything improper passed through there. The rest of your statement is based upon that rather large assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
rule of law
*barf*
Re: (Score:2)
Only when you don't hold the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Look up vicariously, Mr. Butler.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh oh, you're pr.... aah, what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen a single classified email yet that went through that server while it was still classified information? If so, you haven't bothered to show it to us.
I'm not sure you understand how these things work. Or you do, and you're trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we have an adult conversation?
I'd love to. Care to join me?
Her Majesty
#OccupyResoluteDesk.
your shrill, prissy cries for "fair trials"
Apparently, you don't.
as though she isn't going to be pardoned
If you believe she's going to be pardoned, then why do you get yourself so worked up in this conspiracy? Why even bother going forward if you are so certain of the outcome?
Or is that your justification for your armchair prosecution based on nothing but your feelings - you have convinced yourself that your hand can only lose, so you might as well play it out as loudly as you possibly can without regard for facts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to refer to facts to which she has publicly admitted
If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server, then it should be very easy for you to cite a reference where she said that. This is what I have been asking you repeatedly to do; the fact that you keep avoiding the question supports the notion that you know she has never said it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server
I'm sorry; we're talking about a lawyer. Please explain why you think she would admit to, well, anything. I don't think her an honest person, and kinda doubt that the depths of her "official" activities will ever be properly understood. Nor do I think anything resembling "justice" will ever be applied to her case. Nor do I think there will ever be anything pertaining to a legal procedure of any sort applied to her.
We're basically talking about someone who operates completely as a law unto herself.
The open
Re: (Score:2)
If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server
I'm sorry; we're talking about a lawyer.
Who hasn't been licensed to practice law in how long? Sure, she practiced law after finishing law school, but that was some time ago. You can label her as a lawyer but that is not the most meaningful label here. We don't label George HW Bush as a CIA director when discussing him...
Please explain why you think she would admit to, well, anything.
The server logs and server contents have been released for analysis. You don't need her to admit to anything, the information will show if it handled classified information or not. You insist that it had, even though you ha
Re: (Score:2)
The server logs and server contents have been released for analysis.
In one breath you chide anyone for daring to hint at even a *smidgen* of wrongdoing, and just as quickly assert that all information has been fully divulged.
Can you understand that, especially in the context of the last couple of administrations, there might be healthy skepticism afoot?
Then why do you keep expending so much energy into this conspiracy if you are so certain that nothing will come of it?
This is going to sound just a bit kinky, but every time you refer to criticism of events (which any reasonable person would find problematic) as a "conspiracy", it's kind of erotic to me, in a silly way. I'm not seeking unde
Re: (Score:2)
In one breath you chide anyone for daring to hint at even a *smidgen* of wrongdoing,
That is a big leap you just made there, which leads only to you falling on your face. What I have called you out on is not at the suggestion that perhaps something wrong was done, but rather on how certain you are that something was intentionally done wrong in the exact way that you believe it to have been done. You have absolutely no evidence yet to support your allegations. Is it possible that your conspiracy could be supported by facts at some point in the future? Yes, it is possible. However at th
Re: (Score:1)
godless Commie sodomite infestation
Priceless!
Re: (Score:2)
how certain you are that something was intentionally done wrong in the exact way that you believe it to have been done.
This kind of legalistic hairsplittery (among other reasons) is why interactions with you and the thought of Her Majesty leave one craving a bit of personal hygiene.
The question is not: "Can you find some mental gymnastic routine by which you are not precisely guilty of this or that specific act?"
Rather, it's: "Can I trust you?" And you've just there answered: "In general, no."
Give it to me in a forthright manner, or keep it to yourself, please.
how can you be sure
The weasel-wording is the tell.
That is a strange misstatement, there. You mean the ideals that you place in the founding documents.
No, the words are the words. I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
UGH! He just drones on and on and on [youtube.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
He'd mentioned sports, and I allowed that, at the risk of sounding un-American, I'm not that much into sports.
He blurted: "What, are you GAY?" and then looked mortified for having asked such a personal question in a casual business setting when we hardly knew each other.
"You know, I really hadn't ever thought about it. .
Re: (Score:2)
Give it to me in a forthright manner, or keep it to yourself, please.
I have given you a very direct answer, multiple times now. You have no evidence even though you are calling her guilty. Your entire argument is driven by how badly you want her to be guilty, with no time or thought whatsoever given to the fact that the facts are still being ascertained.
The real distinction between us on this matter was clear a few comments ago. I stated plainly that if the facts supported it, I would come around to agree with the notion that classified information was handled incorr
Re: (Score:2)
You have no evidence even though you are calling her guilty.
Her Majesty's behavior screams: "We sooooo guilty, but you gonna do precisely shag-all, Joe." Your crescendos of supercilious bleating aside, Her Majesty will have to get liberal with the walking-around money to buy her way out of the "liar [politico.com]" category. She's the modern Jezebel.
Not when you cherry-pick your way through them and pretend that your interpretation of them is The Only True Reading.
No, if you step back and admire Her Majesty's mosaic of mendacity, you've got to admit: there goes one truth-free piece of work. I can only suppose that you're a minion of the Clinton Machine, based on your complete lack of perspective
Re: (Score:2)
You have no evidence even though you are calling her guilty.
Her Majesty's behavior screams: "We sooooo guilty,
That is some fascinating psychoanalysis, there. If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.
Not when you cherry-pick your way through them and pretend that your interpretation of them is The Only True Reading.
No, if you step back and admire Her Majesty's mosaic of mendacity, you've got to admit: there goes one truth-free piece of work.
First of all, I was talking about how you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution to try to build support for a state of government that has never actually existed here. The Founders realized that their ideals for the time would not be the ideals for all time,
Re: (Score:2)
If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.
Wait, so, it's MY task to present every atom of proof pursuant to Chappaquaiddick? No, I think her contradictory public utterances are sufficient. I would not accuse you of any actual interest in other than wasting my time on the topic. History on here indicates you're just one extended public quibble. And I've already stipulated she's beyond justice. So please explain what, precisely, you care about here.
you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution to try to build support for a state of government that has never actually existed here
Can you re-iterate exactly what Constitutional points you think at issue here? My impression was that H
Re: (Score:2)
If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.
Wait, so, it's MY task to present every atom of proof pursuant to Chappaquaiddick?
No. I never asked for all the proof. I would like to see at least one single fact supporting your claim, which so far you have not provided. Hence my statement of
Not. One. Actual. Fact
No, I think her contradictory public utterances are sufficient.
More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name. But when they come from people with the cursed "D" after their name, they are justification for immediate extralegal removal from whatever post they might have or aspire to.
Show me an actual fact.
Re: (Score:2)
More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name.
Name them. Name. One. Go ahead. You're so intent on distracting from Her Majesty as an utterly unreliable public figure; surely you can name a name. Find some sack. Do it.
You claimed earlier that classified information was mishandled.
Isn't that what the FBI investigation is showing [businessinsider.com]? Your little "hear no evil, see no evil" game marks you great toady material for an authoritarian regime, by the way.
I'm not playing this game.
Dude, you're just a farce. Like Her Majesty.
Re: (Score:2)
More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name.
Name them. Name. One. Go ahead
I'll go one better and give you two for the price of one (or none).
First, all the complete bullshit from your party about "replacing" the ACA. Every proposal we have seen so far has been at least a 90% facsimile of the ACA. Your guys are - as we already knew - just jealous that their own names aren't on it.
Second, the bullshit that lead us into the war in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of what was used to sell the war to us was complete fabrication. Remember Cheney's claim of how quickly it woul
Re: (Score:2)
Name them. Name. One. Go ahead
You seem to have problems naming people.
Second, the bullshit that lead us into the war in Iraq.
For the record, am I supposed to un-remember that Senator Clinton voted for that fiasco? You know, the person with classified documents [politico.com] on her unauthorized personal email server? I guess she gets a pass, having admitted it was a mistake [politico.com], and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have problems naming people.
For the first, pick any candidate running for the GOP nomination for POTUS and they have likely committed that exact untruthful deed. For the second, look at any elected - and many unelected - members of the Bush Jr administration.
For the record, am I supposed to un-remember that Senator Clinton voted for that fiasco?
All on her own? Did she propose it, and sell it to us based on a giant pile of lies as well? I would prefer her to have had enough spine to vote against it, but hardly anyone else did due to the fact that your side had the mega-spin machine in such high gear that you scared a
Re: (Score:2)
Senator Clinton voted for that fiasco?
All on her own?
I'm relatively confident she cast her vote in the Senate by herself. But then, you're one to go peddling conspiracy theories about this immaculate, longsuffering civil servant, aren't you? If Senator Clinton didn't cast her vote for the Iraq war, who did? Why is it even a question? Are we to believe that Dick "VooDoo Mastermind" Cheney, ensconced in the Cloak Room with his Foul Doll Collection, did exert eldritch influence on U.S. Senators to draw the country into a sandy Vietnam debacle? Is that what you t
Re: (Score:2)
All on her own?
I'm relatively confident she cast her vote in the Senate by herself
OK, admittedly I could have phrased that better. It was, however, fun to watch you go off the deep end on it.
What I was after with "all on her own" was that she was not the only Senator to vote for it. Ultimately it was such a lopsided vote that no single vote was worth much of anything as your party beat all the sense out of everyone and forced them to vote in support of a war that was sold on a giant stack of lies and bullshit.
We still don't have all the information on the documents. Read the rest of the releases. These documents are now listed "classified" but it is not clear what their status was at the time.
Way too prosaic.
That's right, it's a democrat here, so they are automatically guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
It was, however, fun to watch you go off the deep end on it.
I do try to afford some entertainment value here.
F... the investigation, right?
I'll quote your F-bomb from the standpoint that the investigation is another farce. Anyone who thinks this administration is going to do anything close to holding Her Majesty accountable (as, for example, Senior Peasant Petraeus was) has effectively climbed Mount McKinley for the purpose of pleasuring themselves.
Her Majesty is still likely to take the nomination and the Presidency,. Then the roundup and crushing of conservatives can begin in earnest. Because
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks this administration is going to do anything close to holding Her Majesty accountable
So your faith-based belief in the investigation being farcical is then your rationale for ignoring it completely and calling instead for the extralegal removal and punishment of the person you want to punish. This is not really a surprise, of course.
still likely to take the nomination and the Presidency,.
This seems to be a large part of your standard mantra, now. Is this part of your attempt to plea for "oppressed minority" status or something? It is not clear what you hope to gain through this tactic, other than perhaps using it to justify hero-worship of
Re: (Score:1)
...crushing of conservatives can begin in earnest
*Stomp the Foot... Crush them all*
[Apologies to Milius and Coppola, and MP]
Re: (Score:2)
your rationale for ignoring it completely and calling instead for the extralegal removal and punishment
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
I knew you could achieve Sanity Escape Velocity!
Praise Leon Trotsky; you made it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not trying to pull off a full end-run around the law - as you have been trying against the POTUS for years now - then what is your goal?
What the balls are you even talking about, dude? Here is Progressive ecstasy: to do something wrong (e.g. Chappaquaiddick) and then accuse the straight folk of "trying to pull off a full end-run around the law". Just fall off the planet and go right through the moon with your jackwagonry!
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not trying to pull off a full end-run around the law - as you have been trying against the POTUS for years now - then what is your goal?
What the balls are you even talking about, dude?
Read your own words. You keep saying that you believe you can't get what you want by using the legal system - both with the POTUS as well as with Hillary - so you have nothing left but to advocate for more extralegal action. You have advocated openly for the extralegal removal of the POTUS; now you are rallying the troops against Hillary with what action as a goal?
then accuse the straight folk of "trying to pull off a full end-run around the law"
The "straight folk"? Really, what on earth is that supposed to mean? You very plainly have been calling for discarding the legal system whe
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying that you believe you can't get what you want by using the legal system - both with the POTUS as well as with Hillary - so you have nothing left but to advocate for more extralegal action.
This logical leap is wholly, 100%, and entirely owned by you, and of your own devising.
You very plainly have been calling for discarding the legal system when it doesn't suit your aims.
Is it the case that, when all of your other flaccid arguments fail, as they must, you have no recourse other than lying?
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying that you believe you can't get what you want by using the legal system - both with the POTUS as well as with Hillary - so you have nothing left but to advocate for more extralegal action.
This logical leap is wholly, 100%, and entirely owned by you, and of your own devising.
You can only reach that conclusion if you ignore the avalanche of comments and JEs that you have written that explicitly show that being your ambition. You have not been one to let logic or reality get in your way as of late, though...
You very plainly have been calling for discarding the legal system when it doesn't suit your aims.
Is it the case that, when all of your other flaccid arguments fail, as they must, you have no recourse other than lying?
Are you pretending now that you have not been calling for the extralegal removal of the POTUS for years now? Are you pretending that you are not trying to mount some sort of campaign against Hillary that would make an end-run around the legal system in hopes of getting her
Re: (Score:1)
and you're trolling
*OMG!*
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who ever served on active duty and handled classified information is just a bit hacked off at Her Majesty's cavalier attitude about, well, everything.
That's true, but comparing Hillary's sending and receiving emails that weren't marked as classified over a non-government server is absolutely NOTHING compared to Petraus' knowingly giving top secret information to someone with neither a need to know nor a security clearance. Remember Mata Hari? (I probably spelled that wrong)
Plus, his adultery is stri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not to be a Petraeus apologist,
*gasp!*
Re: (Score:2)