The Clinton Discussion Thread

[spacejunk]

Not even close.

 

[JGrimez]

I haven't heard one woman come out and say that she was pressured to vote for Trump. Unless you are suggesting that the women are too stupid to even realize that?

Any examples?

 

[spacejunk]

examples of what?
i was refuting that this quote:

A feminist who suggests women are not able to think for themselves?

is in any way a reasonable summation of this quote:

Democrats, going back to my husband and even before, but just in recent times going back to Bill and our candidates and then President Obama, have been losing the vote, including white women. We do not do well with white men and we don't do well with married white women," Clinton said.

She went on to say that white women face an "ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."

Unless you are suggesting that the women are too stupid to even realize that?

uh, no that's absolutely not what i'm saying.
it's not really a discussion i think is worth getting into, beyond saying that i find this post rather silly.

i'm not a clinton fan (far from it!) but i find the obsession that a lot of trump supporters have with her to be a reflection of trump's all-round shabbiness.

obama didn't carry on about mccain or romney for the length of either of his presidential terms - nor did bush jr spend all years going on and on about john kerry or al gore.
trump's political career has been one long obsession with his rivals. whether it's pushing insane "birther" conspiracy theories, or being a sexist asshole, he seems to really revel in the lowest, cheapest political attacks imaginable.

why does trump (and many of his supporters, by extension) keep coming back to hilary clinton - the woman he defeated?

i would suggest that it is one or more of the following things;

- he's got nothing better to say, because he is ill-equipped for the job and lacks any vision or leadership as president
- he thrives off of spite and negativity, and uses bitterness and resentment to rally support
- he is uncomfortable with women holding positions of power or influence, and this is simply a manifestation of misogyny

as to why his supporters go along with it - that's a whole other question.

i would suggest though, that the answer lies in the hostility that has driven the trump campaign into office: it is largely based on the resentment felt by some people at the lessening (in principle or in reality) of their privilege (be it white priviliege, male privilege or whatever).

that's why there is so much nastiness directed at clinton (who - i will point out again - i am definitely not a supporter of).

nastiness like this:

Sadly, here is video of her falling down the steps (twice) again today in India.

I do wish her well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbp3yne4h_4/

there seems to be a massive reactionary backlash to any discussion of gender in politics nowadays.
it's a shame, because there are some important discussions to be had, but i get the impression some folks are too emotionally closed off (from fear or hatred) to engage in them.

is there any truth to clinton's comment, as posted above?

She went on to say that white women face an "ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."

i have no idea - i'm neither a woman nor an american, so i can't offer any insight - but it's at least an interesting topic of discussion, and a pretty classic example of the sort of thing derided by trump people (while they support an alleged rapist).
i''m not saying i agree with clinton, because i don't have an opinion one way or the other. but i do find the inability to discuss political issues that involve or affect women to be very very common in the people who take to the interwebs to defend the current US president.
one claim i come across frequently is that patriarchy isn't an issue in the west, but this total refusal to discuss this sort of thing is proof in itself that sexism/chauvinism/misogyny is still extremely prominent in some quarters.


what morninggloryseed is presenting us with here is a classic example of Lewis' Law:
"Comments on any article about feminism justify feminism."

 

[Morninggloryseed]

I gotta focus on work but I'll come back. I simply enjoy the rivalry.... For me American politics is like baseball. That is the short answer (its just sports/amusement)....I like the one team vs the other. However I can ramble on it longer and answer your other queries later and give you more to analyze.

Good day all.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

Way to miss the point.

As for the video: "trump troll laughs at old woman falling over". Big surprise there.
No class, no dignity.

Sorry, can't resist...I never make claims to be classy or dignified. Do you make those claims for yourself?

 

[Xorkoth]

You enjoy the hateful partisan shit going on right now? Where we have each side despising the other and people suggesting the other side is unpatriotic/traitorous, and tribalism is so deep that otherwise reasonable people will ignore little details such as a candidate being a serial child sexual predator and vote for said candidate just so they don't vote for the other side? I'm all for healthy competition but it's become so incredibly toxic... to me it stopped being an enjoyable rivalry somewhere along the way and now it's just gross/sad/disturbing.

I want to point out that I am fully aware it goes both ways, too. My mom, for example, is the most ridiculously staunch Democrat you can find. All she talks about is how evil Republicans are, and she's looking for anything she can find to support her idea that all of them are slavering sociopathic hatemongers who have children locked up in their basements. It's ridiculous, I facepalm on the regular with her and I grow incredibly weary at the fact that every conversation with her ends up, somehow, about how much she hates Republicans. Rather than enjoyable, I find it exhausting, alarming, and tedious. Same way I feel about the whole situation.

Republicans and Democrats used to disagree but respect each other. Now they're ready to fight or expel the other side from "their" country. It's so fucked up. One of my biggest issues with the current president is that he has stoked this division at every opportunity, his campaign was largely based on widening the partisan divisions. It's disgraceful.

 

[spacejunk]

shit yeah, i'm well classy

i'm not donald trump. i have standards and empathy and a heart. i'm not mindlessly "trolling" the masses with racist bullshit.

and yeah, i call bullshit on charlatans like trump. i'm a great deal classier than that silmy old john, thanks.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

You enjoy the hateful partisan shit going on right now? Where we have each side despising the other and people suggesting the other side is unpatriotic/traitorous, and tribalism is so deep that otherwise reasonable people will ignore little details such as a candidate being a serial child sexual predator and vote for said candidate just so they don't vote for the other side? I'm all for healthy competition but it's become so incredibly toxic... to me it stopped being an enjoyable rivalry somewhere along the way and now it's just gross/sad/disturbing.

I want to point out that I am fully aware it goes both ways, too. My mom, for example, is the most ridiculously staunch Democrat you can find. All she talks about is how evil Republicans are, and she's looking for anything she can find to support her idea that all of them are slavering sociopathic hatemongers who have children locked up in their basements. It's ridiculous, I facepalm on the regular with her and I grow incredibly weary at the fact that every conversation with her ends up, somehow, about how much she hates Republicans. Rather than enjoyable, I find it exhausting, alarming, and tedious. Same way I feel about the whole situation.

Republicans and Democrats used to disagree but respect each other. Now they're ready to fight or expel the other side from "their" country. It's so fucked up. One of my biggest issues with the current president is that he has stoked this division at every opportunity, his campaign was largely based on widening the partisan divisions. It's disgraceful.

No, I don't enjoy that. I mean it has been partisan, it has been that way for a long time. But now there isn't any debate. Dondald Trump is a stupid racist and so are his supporters is an awful thing to tell India.

Hillary Clinton suggested that people who supported President Trump in 2016 did so because they “didn’t like black people getting rights,” or women getting jobs, during a discussion at the India Today Conclave on Sunday.

“If you look at the map of the United States, there’s all that red in the middle where Trump won. I win the coasts, I win Illinois, I win Minnesota, places like that,” Clinton said.

“What the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product,” Clinton explained. “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”

https://ntknetwork.com/clinton-on-t...americans-having-rights-or-women-having-jobs/

It overlooks all of the reasons the millions of those who voted for Obama and chose Trump in 2016. I'm of the idea this is the best they can do to convince people to vote (D)...in other words, Donald trump is a big fat racist, ad nauseum.

Edit: let me make clear I don't believe Trump is a white supremacist and no one I know who voted for Trump is one either.

Also, could you imagine if Donald Trump made comments about black voters in this manor? I can't.

 

[cduggles]

Also, could you imagine if Donald Trump made comments about black voters in this manor? I can't.

At this point there isn't much I can't imagine Trump saying. Unfortunately.

It's odd that neither of these people can let the presidential election go. Moreso the winner.

 

[Morninggloryseed]

It still blows my mind. It had to fry his.

 

[JGrimez]

FROM MUELLER THREAD:

That's not enough, in fact you're not even talking about the right kind of intent.

What do you mean that's not enough? Are you saying that you're fine with nobody being held accountable for removing Special Access Program intelligence from government networks and storing them on a private unsecured server? For people that have no idea, one has to physically go to a government network facility to review classified or SAP intelligence. I'm not sure why I need to explain this but it is considered a very serious offence to remove these files from said secure networks. Anyone who has a relevant security clearance to access these files, could easily be charged for physically removing them and putting them onto a private server if that could be proven. And in this case, nobody is denying that someone relocated these files. So who was responsible? Incompetence, stupidity or ignorance of the law is not relevant here. So how about we focus on that? Do you consider it acceptable that someone has done this and has not been held accountable, been identified or been investigated?

Then if one was Sec of State and ended up receiving these files through an email chain, if they then did not alert the relevant authorities and instead forwarded these files onto aids through email, that constitutes a crime. As I've said before, pleading ignorance is not relevant here due to the serious nature of mishandling classified information. Do you understand these facts or do I need to go into more detail? Do you understand that foreign hackers obtained access to these files due to Clinton's server being unsecured?

This is also just plain false. FISC is not a rubber-stamp court. It's actually a notoriously demanding court. It will usually decline to issue a warrant in the absence of an overwhelming showing of probable cause. The standard it applies typically is higher than what the constitution demands. The reason it issues warrants in a high percentage of cases is that investigators don't even bother applying for a FISA warrant unless they know they can get it. But FISC still rejects some warrant applications, for a variety of reasons.

OK the court that has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years is not a rubber-stamp court?
So please tell me, why would a warrant application as important as Carter Page be rejected by the court?
How is it even possible that they could not convince a FISA court to grant them their warrant?
What changed between the first and second application?
They used the "salacious and unverified" dossier, acquired by violating campaign law (only bad when Trump does it), and was a document that was 'corroborated' by a news article that used the same source, Christopher Steele, which I'm sure you will agree does not equal corroboration. So it appears to be a fact that they needed the dossier to secure the warrant, otherwise the first application would have been accepted and they would not have needed to present the fake dossier. Using knowingly false intel to secure a warrant is a crime.

So to break it down what are you trying to say?
1. The DOJ wouldn't have prosecuted this case (I agree but that's for political reasons)
2. Hillary Clinton is innocent of committing any crimes.

Also:
How about the subpoena'd emails that she deleted? Do you have a problem with this? Was that illegal? Please give your explanation about that incident.
Why were her aids not properly interviewed and then given immunity?
Why did Comey sign an exoneration letter before conducting interviews?
Is it relevant that disgraced, partisan and fired agent Peter Strzok was the one heading up the investigation?
And what about an ex-president and husband of a woman under investigation secretly meeting with Loretta Lynch?

 

[zephyr]

^ Why should people in positions of power be held accountable for anything if they have enough resources to get away with deceit, lies and cover ups?

Investigations are necessary but ultimately show what is obvious- politicians and buerocracrats just lie. They all do.

 

[JGrimez]

^ Why should people in positions of power be held accountable for anything if they have enough resources to get away with deceit, lies and cover ups?

Of course, we all know how the world really works. Could we trust an FBI + DOJ to properly investigate someone who they're terrified of?
This came to a head with Comey and the Clinton investigation. The evidence was glaring. If we were following the rules the investigation would have been handled properly and then escalated. But Clinton was a presidential candidate. Not going to happen. I don't envy Comey, he was forced to come out and directly cover for Clinton while the entire world was watching. He is currently a fired ex-FBI director. I wonder if his actions regarding this investigation had something to do with his removal.

Trump?
He must be removed at all costs, even if we need to ̶b̶r̶e̶a̶k̶ bend the law.
The double standards are what really get me.

 

[JGrimez]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...ton-could-not-recall-during-her-fbi-interview
According to LifeZette, in total, Hillary "could not recall" the following 26 past events in her short interview with the FBI.

• When she received security clearance
• Being briefed on how to handle classified material
• How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
• Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
• How to select a target for a drone strike
• How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
• The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
• Why she didn?t get a secure Blackberry
• Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
• Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
• Getting guidance from state on email policy
• Who had access to her Blackberry account
• The process for deleting her emails
• Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
• Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
• Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
• Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
• Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
• Using an iPad mini
• An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
• Jacob Sullivan using personal email
• State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
• Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
• Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
• Being read out of her clearance
• Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

The "Oh Shit" Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena

​

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...chbit-deleted-hillary-clintons-oh-shit-moment

The story of how Hillary's "personal" emails came to be deleted using, the now infamous, BleachBit is quite the tale. Below we attempt to piece together how the story unfolded per the recent FBI disclosures:

 

[JGrimez]

JUDGMENT DAY: Inspector General's Report on DOJ's Handling of Clinton Email Probe Nears Release
https://truepundit.com/judgment-day...andling-of-clinton-email-probe-nears-release/

Multiple subjects of a report on the Justice Department?s handling of a 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton?s email use have been notified that they can privately review the report by week?s end, signaling the long-awaited document is nearing release.

The report is likely to reignite the volatile debate over the Federal Bureau of Investigation?s handling of the Clinton probe, and it will put Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department?s inspector general, in a familiar place?taking aim at members of the law enforcement community.

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks.

 

[motiv311]

the clinton foundation / Clintons were also busted making a profit selling US uranium to shady foriegn countries. . .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ou-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/

Even this article is written with Left wing bias, but still backs up the story.

 

[JGrimez]

Report: Inspector General Will Declare FBI, DOJ Broke Law in Clinton Email Probe
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...are-fbi-doj-broke-law-in-clinton-email-probe/

A new report suggests an imminent Inspector General (IG) report may rule that FBI and Justice Department officials broke the law in their handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry said Thursday that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has 'found 'reasonable grounds' for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s,' adding that the top watchdog official has ?referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution.'

In response to growing calls for a second special counsel to probe the Clinton email probe, along with FISA abuses that took place during the 2016 election, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in March the appointment of Utah?s top federal prosecutor, John Huber, to probe potential wrongdoing.

It was revealed this week that the Inspector General's highly-anticipated report was submitted for review.

'Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it, people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks,' the Wall Street Journal reported.

Multiple reports suggest the report will be made public by the end of May.

 

[JGrimez]

Stunning revelation buried deep in IG report blows hole in Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting narrative
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...eting-narrative/amp?__twitter_impression=true

A stunning revelation buried deep inside Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the FBI?s Hillary Clinton email investigation suggests the controversial June 2016 tarmac meeting between then Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton was coordinated.
If true, it blows a hole in the narrative Lynch and Clinton have maintained for two years. Lynch claimed the "social" meeting was spontaneous and the two discussed grandchildren.

The meeting was extremely controversial at the time because it came just days before then FBI Director James Comey announced the FBI would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton for using a private email server while secretary of state.

What does Horowitz's report say?

The report states that the DOJ department of public affairs supervisor traveling with Lynch told internal DOJ investigators that Clinton's Secret Service detail contacted Lynch's security detail ahead of time to arrange the meeting.

 

[Xorkoth]

Clinton is corrupt. I prefer to focus on Trump's corruption and ineptitude, however, as it's far more relevant and damaging at the moment. The longer he stays in office, the more damage he and his people can do. I'd have preferred Clinton be elected than Trump but I'm glad Clinton wasn't elected too. When you're given the choice between a douche and a turd sandwich, nobody wins...

 

[spacejunk]

At least a douche is cleansing, right?
This turd sandwich is making an awful mess.

NSFW: