..had emails on it containing information beyond top secret.
After what happened to Petraeus (and is currently happening), if she isn’t indicted for this, it will be beyond a travesty. And the end of the rule of law in this country.
[Update a few minutes later]
And the State Department has “found” thousands of new documents under FOIA from Judicial Watch.
[Update a while later]
Good lord, the IG had to be read into the program in order to read the emails.
I’m sure that the media is thrilled that Sarah Palin is endorsing Trump today, so they don’t have to report on this.
[Friday-morning update]
Michael Mukasey’s take: A criminal charge is justified. More than one, I’d say.
[Bumped]
[Afternoon update]
Hillary’s unsecured server may have exposed a human intelligence asset.
It’s not surprising that the IG had to have his clearances upped to read Hillary’s e-mails; Nobody (aside from an occupant of the oval office), no matter how highly cleared, can get into SAP stuff without need to know.
IMHO, it would take a lot to top the e-mail where Hillary orders Sullivan to strip out the headers (the classification markings) and sent it nonsecure. But, IMHO, this IG report (what little we know of it) does it.
If she had that many yoga e-mails, she wouldn’t need to wear pantsuits!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prls6Iz3B3E
Nobody (aside from an occupant of the oval office), no matter how highly cleared, can get into SAP stuff without need to know.
Well, there is Sid Blumenthal…
@ Leyland
Lol! Well, yes, it appears Blumenthal did, somehow, have access to classified info after leaving office. There’s no explanation for that that’s not a felony.
The question is, did he get that stuff via Hillary, or some other felon?
I have to pick a nit with the “beyond top secret” nomenclature though. Essentially all TS material is special access (SAP) or sensitive compartmentalized information (SCI). Nobody is going to classify something as TS without additional caveats being applied. When people say things like “beyond TS” with reference to SAP or SCI, it betrays that they don’t really know how classification of material works.
Not true. I’ve had a TS for the past five years, but have had SCI with special access for only part of that time. That’s pretty common. The background investigation that goes into a TS/SCI vetting is different from that of a vanilla TS. They go back 10 years for SCI, versus 7 for plain TS. The intelligence community even uses polygraphs for SCI, but not plain TS. It’s a different level of trust. When I worked on nuclear weapons programs, about 10% of the people in the organization had TS, but only three people had SCI.
It’s all still part of the range of the TS clearance.
TS/SCI is far more restricted than TS, and SAP is way more restricted than TS/SCI. You can get a TS clearance with just a thorough background check. An SCI clearance is harder to get than TS, and SAP requires things like lifestyle polygraphs and very deep checks. Effectively, SAP is way beyond TS.
And a SAP clearance is much harder to obtain than an SCI. As far as I know, SAP is the highest level of classification. Think of the Manhattan Project and the development of stealth technology in the 1970s as examples of SAP projects. I’ve had TS/SCI for years but never had a job that required a SAP clearance.
Sigh…one more try:
SAP is Special Access Program. This means that the program security apparatus has final approval of the clearance. Applicants start off with a “collateral” standard clearance, then the program will augment the collateral clearance per their specific requirements. Some SAPs require a TS as the “base” clearance; some only require a Secret as the base clearance. FYI, I’ve never heard of any “collateral” TS; I think it’s pretty much always attached to a SAP or is SCI.
This stuff about a SAP being harder to acquire than an SCI is nonsense. SCI requires a TS as the base; there’s no Secret/SCI. Some SAPs are easier to get into than getting an SCI, some are harder. Many SAPs have limited number of billets available, which makes it harder to get into in a logistical sense only, not a “trustworthiness” sense. SCI and most SAPs require the cleared person to submit to a polygraph on demand, but only a small subset of SAPs require a poly of any kind in order to be cleared, and even fewer require the much-dreaded lifestyle poly.
So, based on my experience, I call SCI a type of TS clearance, not “above TS”. And I consider SAP access is a type of TS or Secret, not “above TS”. There are probably some clearances above TS (e.g., SIOP level), which might be a type of SAP, but nothing I’ve seen so far about Hillary’s server looks like “above TS”. But TS in her basement is plenty bad enough.
There is Secret SCI stuff out there, or at least there was in the 1980s.
The US Government has 3 levels of classification and one other restricted access bucket: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret are classified. Then there is Sensitive But Unclassified – things like commercial bid and proposal information, HIPAA data, and Export Controlled data.
All of the classified data can have SAP/SCI keywords attached, but I was told that there probably were no Confidential keyword programs. You also have the “NOFORN” keyword which doesn’t allow non-citizens access to the data (i.e. don’t share even within NATO).
A friend of mine worked for a vendor that did specialized aircraft outfitting, She had Secret clearances from over 20 countries and a handful of alliances (NATO, SEATO, etc.) Her debrief took forever when she transferred to another branch of her employer.
You are correct about the fact that SCI and SAP access is not “above top secret.” That was what annoyed me. But there is plenty of collateral TS. Most of the technically-oriented agencies in DC are loaded with TS holders, but only a relatively small percentage have SCI, and a smaller subset still assess to SAPs. It’s the SCI step that requires much greater trust, and yes, SAP access is mostly logistical after that.
That is all for run of the mill stuff. However, DoE has the Q clearance (roughly a TS), and the IC has the “l” clearance, and I have no idea what that is other than as a holder of TS/SCI/TK SAR/GAMMA/HI-P/CNWDI, I would have to go through another background check and provide a shrubbery to the Knights who say “Ni!” to be allowed to say the letter “l” out loud. I wouldn’t say it’s “above top secret,” it’s just off in its own little la la land.
Hillary, like Bill and Obama, are “super users.” They can hear anything without restriction, and without signing a caveat form when they do get read in. It’s just taken for granted that they know everything there is to know, and are hence an unlimited contingent liability to the country.
That’s why I said that Hillary’s use of an insecure private server for all of her official email, which was subsequently “deleted”, constituted the single biggest national security breach in the history of the Republic. Not only has she exposed everything we know to the world, but we don’t know what she exposed because of the deletion. So we have to assume the world knows everything in every Presidential Daily Brief from every day she was Secretary of State.
If I had a secretary that did that, I’d certainly not give her a strong letter of recommendation.
But the Democrat party would make her President.
That’s why I said that Hillary’s use of an insecure private server for all of her official email, which was subsequently “deleted”, constituted the single biggest national security breach in the history of the Republic.
Leaving aside that we don’t know of any actual harm that has come from Clinton’s email use (as opposed to, say, the Soviet spy ring at Los Alamos), there’s the awkward fact that Colin Powell also used a private server for all of his official email. Do you consider Powell’s email the second biggest national security breach in the history of the Republic?
Leaving aside that we don’t know of any actual harm that has come from Clinton’s email use
The law does not care. And in fact we do have actual harm: destruction of evidence of public corruption.
Leaving aside that we don’t know of any actual harm that has come from Clinton’s email use…
You wouldn’t be told about it, because it would be classified for a long time. But the real harm could be huge, and come when we least expect it.
Since you haven’t the slightest knowledge of the ins and outs of classified information, Jim, and even less concern for the security of the United States when it might interfere with the installation of a Democrat dictator, at least consider the enormous cost to this country – which you will feel in your taxes, without ever knowing where they were spent. Since we have to consider the contents of every Presidential Daily Brief Hillary ever received to have been made available to all of our enemies, we have to mitigate the damage. All of the damage. It is almost impossible to imagine the scale of that effort, but it will be in the tens of billions of dollars, perhaps more. No other white collar crime compares to this.
And in fact we do have actual harm: destruction of evidence of public corruption.
So you’re going to prove that she committed crime #1 (destruction of evidence), by just assuming that she’s guilty of crime #2 (public corruption)? You’re chasing your tail.
It isn’t even clear that any emails were destroyed — didn’t the FBI say that they’ve recovered even the personal emails that she told her staff to delete?
So you’re going to prove that she committed crime #1 (destruction of evidence), by just assuming that she’s guilty of crime #2 (public corruption)?
No, I’m simply pointing out that public corruption is one of the things the FBI is investigating, based on what they found on the server.
It isn’t even clear that any emails were destroyed — didn’t the FBI say that they’ve recovered even the personal emails that she told her staff to delete?
So, she’s innocent of destruction of evidence because she was too incompetent to do it properly? Really?
Now in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-said-to-include-material-exceeding-top-secret.html?smid=pl-share
Also this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html?smid=pl-share
Wheels coming off?
Wheels coming off?
I notice that Jim hasn’t been back in a while.
I’m still here.
As for these emails, it’s common knowledge that members of the State Department under administrations of both parties have routinely circulated classified information by email, contrary to the relevant laws and regulations. We’re only getting this detailed look at the practice because Clinton’s political adversaries forced her to release her emails; no one ever conducted this sort of public review of Condoleezza Rice’s emails, or Colin Powell’s. Clinton’s adversaries don’t particularly care what Rice or Powell did; from their perspective the relevant laws and regulations are only interesting to the degree that they can be used to hurt Clinton politically.
Really? Did they also deliberately conceal and destroy government documents? That’s 18 U.S. Code § 2071. Three years for each count, and disqualifying for public office.
Powell deliberately destroyed all of his work emails. Funny how that fact did not generate 1% of the attention, from the media, the courts, or the FBI, that Clinton’s emails have. Do you really want to argue that this is about preserving government documents, and not about winning the 2016 election?
He had those emails on a homebrew server? Or were they on government servers like they are supposed to be (and thus recoverable for FOIA requests)?
You’re really reaching here, Jim.
Clinton’s adversaries don’t particularly care what Rice or Powell did
I support Loretta Lynch appointing a special prosecutor to look into all of the past (and current) Secretary of States’ lack of responsibility in handling classified data. What say you, Jim?
I say it’s politically opportunistic. Powell deleted all his emails. State has said that they don’t have all of Rice’s. The net effect of such an investigation is to put the focus entirely on Clinton.
Your response is logically invalid. For your point to make sense, you have to accept the GOP made her get a private server. That’s not the case. The opportunity to prosecute Hillary Clinton is due to having evidence she committed a crime.
As for Powell and Rice, all we have is an accusation by you. Would you like to share the evidence you have that Powell sent classified information from a private email account? I’ll take an IG report.
For your point to make sense, you have to accept the GOP made her get a private server.
No, you only have to accept that an investigation into two Republican officials who aren’t active in politics, and a Democrat who is running for president, is not a politically neutral act.
The opportunity to prosecute Hillary Clinton is due to having evidence she committed a crime.
And you have that evidence because she, unlike Powell, did not delete all of her work emails, and because relentless Benghazi investigations made her emails public. Which, of course, was the point of those investigations: to go on a fishing expedition in hopes of finding something to help the GOP win the White House.
As for Powell and Rice, all we have is an accusation by you.
Hardly. See the AP story. We’ll never know whether Powell and Rice had as much classified information in their email as Clinton, because most of the evidence is gone. But based on the evidence we do have, there’s no reason to believe they were any more fastidious than Clinton.
Of course there’s a reason. They don’t have a long documented history of lying, cover up and corruption.
They don’t have a long documented history of lying
Who can imagine Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice every lying, especially about anything important? It must not have been Rice who told the U.S. public that Iraq’s aluminum tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs”, after being assured by the Department of Energy that the tubes probably weren’t for that purpose. It must not have been Powell who he made the same claim to the U.N. No, Hillary Clinton must be the only Secretary of State who’d ever lie to the public.
Your argument is circular. “Clinton is a criminal”. How do you know? “She had classified information in her emails”. Her predecessors did as well. “No they didn’t.” How can you be sure? “Because Clinton is a criminal.”
Hillary Clinton is running for president. The Republicans want her to lose. Those two facts explain 99% of the email story.
No, you only have to accept that an investigation into two Republican officials who aren’t active in politics, and a Democrat who is running for president, is not a politically neutral act.
I don’t accept that premise at all, because again it is invalid. For your premise to be rational, we would have to first stipulate that criminal law either does or does not apply based on political ambition. Further, you are making the case that so long as a person has political ambition, they should be immune from prosecution. That’s not a valid argument, but it is also completely irrational.
And you have that evidence because she, unlike Powell, did not delete all of her work emails,
Actually, that statement isn’t valid either. I don’t know if the emails with classified data were from the ones she handed over, or the ones she tried to delete and the FBI was able to recover. You don’t know either. As for Powell, you still haven’t provided any rational supporting the argument against appointing a special prosecutor to investigate him.
Also your AP story isn’t an investigation by a prosecutor. That you can find someone that shares your irrational and invalid viewpoint doesn’t make it anymore credible. You are making an accusation that Powell committed a crime. The rational thing to do is to prove your case in court, and that starts with an investigation by a prosecutor’s office. So why aren’t you calling for a Loretta Lynch to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Powell?
Hardly. See the AP story. We’ll never know whether Powell and Rice had as much classified information in their email as Clinton, because most of the evidence is gone. But based on the evidence we do have, there’s no reason to believe they were any more fastidious than Clinton.
Let’s read the story, Jim.
So no, Clinton wasn’t more fastidious. That setup would have made it a lot easier to destroy evidence than anything Powell or Rice had. Further, I don’t agree with the story that these were “equally problematic”. Routing important email through machines which aren’t even on the State Department network nor supported by State Department IT is much less secure.
I would consider that setup brazenly promiscuous not “fastidious” BTW.
Moving on, we have yet to receive an explanation why that setup was necessary. Everything she claimed to want, like support for multiple PDAs, could have been done by the State Department IT.
Finally, Jim, why are we to ignore that Clinton committed a number of felonies here? Even if the charges are politically motivated, we still have that she committed crimes just by using that private server and by instructing one of her staff members to mishandle classified information. I rather see her punished than to let this slide merely because the ones bringing the charges are politically motivated. I rather they do the right thing for the wrong reasons than not do it at all.
Bullshit. My agency does black work, and has an unclassified email system. I use unclassified email systems personally. But any classified material is sent through SIPR or a other secure network, and there are special channels for SCI and SAP. Colin Powell has said flat out that he had two separate computers on his desk, one for unclassified and the other for classified. We peons have even more restrictions, in that we have to go into a SCF to use the classified systems. I work in DC, in the highly classified world, and have never heard of anyone in State (other than Hillary) sending classified material in the clear.
You seem to think that these security rules are there just to protect against lapses by “lower level” (I.e. “Inferior to the ruling class”) people, while the “higher” levels are free to say what they want in the clear because of their superior judgement. The security rules are for everyone, especially people like Hillary who have access to everything.
I work in DC, in the highly classified world, and have never heard of anyone in State (other than Hillary) sending classified material in the clear.
Now you have:
If that’s the case, then AG’s office needs to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the State Department. What you and the AP are claiming is the equivalent of Valerie Plame being outted routinely. I demand a special prosecutor be appointed by Loretta Lynch to investigate these various claims of bureaucrats routinely scoffing at laws designed to protect against espionage.
I work in DC, in the highly classified world, and have never heard of anyone in State (other than Hillary) sending classified material in the clear.
Now you have:
No, I haven’t. I’ve read a story that doesn’t have a shred of credibility. People with access to Top Secret information don’t stand around in the halls and discuss it, then e-mail it in the clear because they are frustrated with their classified system. If they did, they would not have access to Top Secret information.
To get a TS clearance, your background is investigated. That investigation is repeated every 5 years. It begins with you filing form SF-86. Allow me to enlighten you:
27 USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
The following questions ask about your use of information technology systems. Information technology systems include all related computer hardware, software, firmware, and data used for the communication, transmission, processing, manipulation, storage, or protection of information. You are required to answer the questions fully and truthfully, and your failure to do so could be grounds for an adverse employment decision or action against you. Neither your truthful responses nor information derived from your responses will be used as evidence against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding.
a In the last 7 years, have you illegally or without authorization modified, destroyed, manipulated, or denied others access to information residing on an information technology system?
b In the last 7 years, have you illegally or without proper authorization entered into any information technology system?
c In the last 7 years, have you introduced, removed, or used hardware, software, or media in connection with any information technology system without authorization, when specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations?
Anyone in State who sent classified information in the clear would have been in violation of all of these things. If it were “consistent with a culture” to do so, no one in State would ever get a security clearance. These investigators are not chumps. They know what they’re doing, and I have been astonished at the fact that they sometimes know things about me that I had long forgotten. So this story is bullshit.
“it’s common knowledge that members of the State Department under administrations of both parties have routinely circulated classified information by email, contrary to the relevant laws and regulations.”
Common knowledge? to who? Under what law at the time?
Why do you insist upon a defense that only a second grader would use against a sibling?
IF they broke the law go after them. That means nothing as to whether:
Hillary broke the law (she did)
That she should be held to the same standard as Petraeus and the State department guy who worked for her and was indicted for less (she is, so far, being held to a lower standard).
And if Hillary is fit to be trusted with the Nations secrets (she is not), and therefore……
That Hillary should never get within 100 miles of the Presidency.
Petraeus admitted to knowingly showing classified documents to his mistress, and knowingly lying to the FBI about it. Clinton has not done those things.
Who is the “State department guy” you are referring to?
Petraeus admitted to knowingly showing classified documents to his mistress, and knowingly lying to the FBI about it. Clinton has not done those things.
To his mistress who had a clearance. Did he (as Hilllary did) tell the mistress to strip off the markings and forward to someone else?
Hillary hasn’t lied to the FBI yet only because they haven’t interviewed her. They want to complete their investigation, so they can set up a nice perjury trap for her.
“Who is the “State department guy” you are referring to?”
Couldn’t remember his name so I had to look it up:
Scott Gration.
Hillary’s State Dept. Forced The Resignation Of An Ambassador For Using Private E-Mail
Although Hillary Clinton and her allies may be claiming that her private e-mail system is no big deal, Hillary’s State Department actually forced the 2012 resignation of the U.S. ambassador to Kenya in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system. According to a 2012 report from the State Department’s inspector general, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration set up a private e-mail system for his office in 2011.
The inspector general’s report offered a scathing assessment of Gration’s information security practices — practices that are eerily similar to those undertaken by Clinton while she served as Secretary of State:
The inspector general’s report specifically noted that Gration violated State Department policy by using a private, unsanctioned e-mail service for official business. In its executive summary listing its key judgments against the U.S. ambassador to Kenya who served under Hillary Clinton, the inspector general stated that Gration’s decision to willfully violate departmental information security policies highlighted Gration’s “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.” The report claimed that this reluctance to obey governmental security policies was the former ambassador’s “greatest weakness.”
……………..
Turns out he wasn’t indicted…just forced to resign in disgrace.
Hillary should be facing the same disgrace and, since she actually did worse, should never be allowed within 100 miles of DC or give the slightest power over other people’s lives.
Wow. Wasn’t that the guy that Obama initially wanted for NASA administrator?
Broadwell did not have clearance to see the materials Petraeus showed her, and he admitted that he knew at the time she did not have clearance.
Even if it’s the case that Clinton had someone strip classification markings from classified information to send it over an insecure channel, in order to circumvent a malfunctioning secure fax machine — something that the released email suggests, but does not prove — that’s a far cry from what Petraeus did. The statutes in question lean heavily on the question of intent. Petraeus intended to impress his girlfriend by deliberately breaking the law on her behalf. Clinton intended to do her job.
Petraeus showed his mistress some information. Hillary kept thousands of classified documents on a non-secure server connected to the Internet.
Scott Gration was not fired because of his email server.
Jim, Politifact is a joke. They just spent last week claiming Reagan had nothing to do with the release of the Iranian Hostages in 1981, and the majority of their source material was from the last 2 years. There one source material from the period, a NYT article no less, contradicted Politifact. So, find a more reputable source. Politifact lies as often as you do. And yes you are lying, because the politifact article you linked to says that the Private Email use was part of the reason he was fired. That there may be other issues as well doesn’t eliminate that the private email use was also a factor. In fact some of the other arguments given, like installing an internet connection, is just Politifact’s way of lying to you. The internet connection was so he could use a private email server, which the article actually says, and then pretends like it is a separate issue later.
Based on his decades of military experience handing classified information, I doubt Colin Powell was so stupid as to handle classified info on unclassified systems.
You could just as well write that “Based on his decades of military experience handing classified information, I doubt David Petraeus was so stupid as to handle classified info on unclassified systems.” And you would be wrong.
He didn’t do that.
Of course he did. The FBI found classified information on Paula Broadwell’s computer, information that came from Petraeus. In his plea deal he admitted to having given Broadwell black notebooks which “collectively contained classified information regarding the identifies of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings….” He’d been keeping the notebooks in an unlocked desk drawer.
So, when I get pulled over for speeding I can explain to the judge that I’m not guilty because there were 10 other cars around me that were speeding too? Haha, yea that’ll work.
Perhaps it’s battlespace preparation for a brokered convention. There’s another option, what I call my nightmare scenario. I call it that because the notion popped to mind and woke me from a deep sleep. The Dems go to a brokered convention. Who are they going to nominate? Sanders? He’s a proud socialist who, while popular with the economically illiterate free stuff crowd, would be poison to working people due to the tax increases necessary to pay for his wet dreams. Lieawatha Warren? She’s a vagino-American but that wouldn’t be enough. Biden? In addition to being a world-class moron, he has his issues with women as well. Remember those creepy photos?
Who’s left? Gore? Kerry? They’re yesterday’s losers. What about a different female, one who already has widespread name recognition? Who is also black, so any criticism would automatically be derided as both sexist and racist.
Michelle.
Predictions: Hillary Clinton will not be charged with a crime before election day. There will not be a brokered Democratic convention. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.
This seems very likely. Hillary Cosby has a lot of popularity with Democrats and regardless of the merits of her mishandling of classified info, there will be no charges out of the DDOJ.
“charged”. Irrelevant. A recommendation by the FBI that she and several of her minions should be charged with hundreds of counts of whatever ought to be enough to sink her. A refusal by the DOJ to charge would just make them look worse, wouldn’t help Clinton.
It’s not clear to me that the whole FBI is under Clinton’s thumb. Could be, but not at all clear. I have no idea why no liberal admits that this is worrisome. Take Jim D, for instance. Does he really have any idea whether Clinton’s actions are worse than Colin Powell’s, or – absolute best case – just par for the course with Secretaries of State? Presumably not, if he isn’t in the FBI. Does it make sense to nominate someone like that and cross your fingers? Not to me.
But that’s not what they’re doing. They are saying, if conservative outlets are pushing it, then it is _guaranteed_ to have no foundation. Heads in the sand.
As a Clinton supporter, I freely admit that it’s worrisome. It’s certainly conceivable, if quite unlikely, that Clinton could be torpedoed by this, whether or not her actions were any worse than those of her predecessors. Stranger things have happened. In that regard it’s like supporting Ted Cruz even though he was born in Canada. The location of his birth shouldn’t matter, but you can’t rule out the possibility that it will. If you sincerely think he’s the best candidate do you bail just because there’s a chance of him being undone by the “natural born citizen” language?
I’m aware of the risks. But I continue to support Clinton because I think she’d be a better president than any of the other candidates, by a wide margin.
Because Hillary will keep giving you free stuff at the expense of others.
Because Hillary will keep giving you free stuff at the expense of others.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider the best president to necessarily be the one who helps me the most personally.
It’s actually the Republicans who are promising me more free stuff at the expense of others, and their promises are more credible. I don’t expect Clinton or Sanders to actually be able to deliver the policies they propose; they’ll almost certainly face a GOP House. The Republicans, on the other hand, would almost certainly cut my taxes. Doing so would be bad for the country (IMO), as would most of the other things they propose (IMO), which is why I hope none of them will be elected.
“It’s certainly conceivable, if quite unlikely, that Clinton could be torpedoed by this, whether or not her actions were any worse than those of her predecessors.” Head in the sand. Why unlikely? You’re not in the FBI. Why not worse than her predecessors? You’re not in the FBI. Maybe it was a whole lot worse. You have zero information, just like the rest of us. So why is it unlikely? Would you give someone ten to one odds against it?
Sergeant Major Michelle S. Jones ?
Cutting your taxes is not free stuff. It’s the return of private property. Let’s just make that clear. My salary doesn’t belong to the Federal Government. People like you just automatically assume that it does.
Now, once they take that tax money and distribute it, then it becomes free stuff. And your subsidies at the expense of others is theft.
Above is my reply to Jim.
Freakin’ crap, Rand, with all Hillary’s flaws, you really want Bernie? “The Stupid Party” is torching itself as usual and I have no confidence that whoever they nominate can beat him.
Let’s see, in Venezuela the had a “Bolivarian” revolution. Bernie’s idol is Eugene Debs, so will we have a “Debsian” revolution? SSDN
We’re not going to get Bernie. He’s unelectable.
I can only hope that your pronouncement turns out to be correct.
Obama looked to be unelectable based upon his lack of serious accomplishments….
I fully expect Bernie to win both in Iowa and New Hampshire. But it won’t really get exciting until South Carolina. If Bernie wins there, expect the long knives to come out. I fully expect the DNC’s rat-f* pack has something ready to go to burn the Bern. Probably something juicy. But they are holding off using the nuclear option until the last possible moment for fear of disillusioning and losing the left-wing in the general election. But not if holding off comes at the expense of Hillary. Watch closely what MSDNC airs after the South Carolina primary… If Bernie wins…
Petraeus didn’t destroy evidence. On top of everything else Hillary did, she destroyed evidence. And Jim cought himself up in his own words by noting how Petraeus did pass classified material onto unsecured systems, but Jim forgets that is what got Petreaus in trouble.
Hillary Cosby said no one is too big to jail. Will Democrats be consistent in their standards or will they go birther like Jim, showing that standards are what non-Democrats are held to?
Time will tell but the party that wanted to execute Bush as a war criminal but is silent on Obama’s war crimes probably isn’t going to magically think Hillary Cosby should be held to account like other people.
Jim’s defense revolves around the claim that other people may have done something illegal so its OK if Hillary did something illegal and that isn’t a legal defense but rather a rhetorical one and it isn’t effective.
His other defense is that the desire to see Hillary’s emails was a fishing expedition but contrary to Jim’s claims, in the context of the Benghazi investigation were pertinate. They showed Hillary lied.
These email requests were limited in scope and why got Hillary into trouble were using a private email server, the destruction of emails, and the storage and transfer of classified information. No one made Hillary do this and if she hadn’t, we would only be talking about how she lied about Benghazi rather than whether or not she should be held to the same standard as Petreaus.
To Jim’s credited, he is excellent at throwing in fud but dragging in Petreaus and other Secretaries of State is a tacit admission that he and Hillary are wrong.
In the end it doesn’t matter because justice isn’t blind in the Obama administration. Social justice isn’t about equal application of the law but rather unequal application of the law to punish those scapegoated for our society’s real and imagined historical sins and giving preferential treatment to the marginalized and their allies. Under this system, Hillary can not be charged or be guilty.
Nice recap Wodun.
Ever notice that Jim doesn’t remind us about how important it was to find out who mishandled the classified status of Valerie Plame, and what happened when someone destroyed evidence related to it, even though that evidence had nothing to do with the initial supposed crime (I say supposed, because the person who inappropriately released Plame’s classified status was never prosecuted).
I think Jim doesn’t want to talk about it, because that’s really the double standard if Hillary doesn’t have to face a prosecutor.
We could also bring up Martha Stewart.
“Jim’s defense revolves around the claim that other people may have done something illegal so its OK if Hillary did something illegal and that isn’t a legal defense but rather a rhetorical one and it isn’t effective. ”
Not only is it not effective…it’s infantile.
After George W. Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence for “outing” “CIA agent” Valerie Plame (a crime which it is now known he did not commit), a lot of politicians were “outraged.” For example:
“Today’s decision is yet another example that this administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies.
“Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”
That was Hillary Clinton’s “outrage.” Just sayin’