Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's IT Aide to Plead the Fifth in Open Records Lawsuit Over Private Email Server

Former State Department staffer Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton's private server, will refuse to answer questions in lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch.

|

Hillary Clinton's got friends.
Vincent Giordano/Dreamstime.com

Brian Pagliano, the technology staffer employed by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign who also set up the private email server at her home while she was secretary of state, will invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse questions put to him in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch

Pagliano's stated intention to plead the Fifth under questioning effectively ends the speculation that he might provide testimony which could be potentially incriminating to Clinton.

Said speculation was fueled by the news in March that Pagliano had been granted immunity by the FBI, provided he cooperates with the Bureau's investigation into the legality of Clinton's use of a private server to conduct government business.

According to court documents published by The Hill, Pagliano's lawyers requested the court provide a protective order for their client, calling him "a nonparty caught up in a lawsuit with an undisputed political agenda."

Pagliano's lawyers also asked the court to block Judicial Watch from recording the proceedings where Pagliano will refuse to answer questions, after their request that Judicial Watch drop their subpeona was refused. To argue this point, the attorneys cited a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure which allows courts "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense."

In 2015, Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege when he refused to answer questions from the House Select Committee on Benghazi. He later declined to speak with both the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees after he was granted immunity from the FBI.

Last month, the State Department announced that nearly all archived emails sent to and from Pagliano had been lost. 

Reason had reached out to Judicial Watch for comment and will update this post if we receive a response. 

Update: Judicial Watch provided Reason with a statement, which read in part, "There are credibility issues that are raised by any assertions of the of the Fifth Amendment. The video is going to be helpful to Judge Sullivan in assessing Mr. Pagliano's demeanor when he asserts his Fifth Amendment rights and answers other questions."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

266 responses to “Hillary Clinton's IT Aide to Plead the Fifth in Open Records Lawsuit Over Private Email Server

  1. Trump/dalai lama??

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli…..es-n583701

    1. Oh, dear, I guess that only leaves Scientology as the religion for hip Hollywood celebrities.

      1. The Dalai Lama is a Marxist ,I’m sure they’ll forgive this one stance.

        1. Whatchoo talking ’bout, Willis?

          -jcr

    2. The Dalai Lama said that “from a moral standpoint” he thinks refugees should “only be accommodated temporarily” ? with the goal of them returning home to rebuild their countries.

      This from the guy who hasn’t been home since 1959…

      1. Top.Man.

    3. A foundational text of Tibetan Buddhism is the Kalachakra Sutra, which, among other things, includes a prophecy about an eventual holy war between the Buddhist warriors of Shambala and Islam. Considering that the roots of the Tibetan Buddhism were laid by Buddhist monks fleeing the destruction of Nalanda University at the hands of Mamluks, it’s not surprising that the Dalai Lama has often been critical of the Religion of Peace(TM).

      1. [Puts on best impression of exasperated Seinfeld]:
        “Mamluks!”

    4. Gunga galunga…gunga — gunga galunga.

      1. So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.

        1. No bare feet.

          1. You owe me one gumball machine.

            1. +1 50? coke.

        2. Cinderella story, out of nowhere, a former greenskeeper… about to become… the Masters champion.

    5. The influx of migrants and refugees has led to a spike in anti-foreigner sentiment in Germany.

      I wonder why. NBC doesn’t seem interested in speculating on a reason.

      1. Better to let the readers do it for them, and to thereby maintain plausible deniability for themselves.

        (Racism.)

        But you didn’t hear it from us!

  2. Let’s see, testify and get murdered or plead the fifth and maybe get some bad press?

    Tough call

    1. “or plead the fifth and maybe get some bad press?”

      And a hotplate

    2. He better check his 5th Amendment privilege.

      1. To plead the 5th, does that mean he turned down immunity? How else could he incriminate himself?

        1. Not a lawyer, but I cannot see why the lawyers for Judicial Watch can’t call an FBI official to the stand to testify he has been offered blanket immunity, and offer still stands. Then call Pagliano, question him and when he invokes 5th, ask judge to hold him in contempt. The 5th has no standing if you cannot incriminate yourself because of immunity.

  3. Most transparent administration EVAH!

    Man, that Libertarian case for Obama sure was prescient.

    1. Ikr? A black president and he didn’t even try to end the War on Drugs.

  4. I applaud Tony for finding a photo which gives *exactly* the correct impression of what’s going on here.

    my guess is that they leaned on him for a while thinking they could use the impression of his immunity to scare others. But i’m surprised Pag’s lawyers played along w/ that. why not just announce you’re clamming up on day 1?

    Anyway, i suppose that’s supposed to be a ‘death bell’ for the idea that HC will get indicted. Unless someone ‘inside’ rats, it seems to me they won’t bother trying to nail her on some lesser charges.

    1. What is it that they don’t have? From what I’ve seen it’s documented she ordered the establishment of the server, she was told it was unsecure and a violation of State Department policies and kept using it (ignoring the fact that she was briefed on that from day 1), and material of the highest classification status and sensitivity was on it. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

      If nothing being sent to her was sensitive, they wouldn’t have had to tell underlings not to send her any such material after they realized someone was trying to hack it in 2011.

      What is needed to show intent here? A video message of Hillary cackling while she says she plans to send classified material to her unsecured server so the Russians and Chinese can read it in return for campaign donations? This cunt should be brought up on charges related to her foundation. She should be already be indicted for breaking federal record keeping laws and for her handling of classified material.

      1. What is it that they don’t have?

        I’m no lawyer, but what i heard from Joe DeGenova here was that the choice to set up the outside-server is where the real kernel of the ‘Crime’ happened.

        Testimony about the decision to set up that system separate and apart from the .gov accounts, which provided statements demonstrating knowledge of its potential security weaknesses and the problem it would have re: document-retention, is where you can go from mere “Gross Negligence”, to something more like a Criminal Conspiracy to evade federal law.

        It seems to me that with Pagliano, they had someone with *direct* firsthand knowledge of the intent there, and could have directly implicated Clinton.

        I think they could still charge her with a wide range of things, but without at least one person providing testimony which can substantiate “intent”, that they’ll be smaller-ball which the DoJ can provide a better-excuse for ‘passing on’.

        If the FBI really had the goods on her – and had someone who ‘talked’ – it would be much harder for DoJ to blow it off.

        1. They don’t need intent. Negligence is enough for a conviction under the espionage act.

          -jcr

      2. As a footnote = i think Grey Ghost below actually clears this up. Pag’s taking the 5th in the Judicial Watch suit actually has nothing to do with his immunity in the FBI investigation re: Clinton email. In fact it actually makes sense because he’d not want to much up any possible statements he’d already given under oath in exchange for said immunity, unless i’m mistaken.

        I was totally over-reading what happened and assumed there was a change of his status where he was basically going Mum because some Clinton operative walked into court with his Mother from Sicily, or something.

      3. But that seems to all be established within emails she sent. It doesn’t even some be weasel logic as much as wilful obtuseness to claim they need specific testimony from co-conspirators to me. Even just the breaking of federal record laws – when intent is there – is a felony that bars one from holding office under federal law. The IG report specifically stated that it was reported she was not in compliance, and those who voiced the concerns were told to clam up.

        An indictment doesn’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And the vast majority of federal cases, as most of us are aware, end in plea deals. This would never even get in front of a jury. People in this case seem very clearly to be looking for reasons not to indict and thus to ignore the proverbial big flashing neon signs indicating intent. This isn’t surprising, but I’d be happier if it was called what it is instead of pretending that it’s some nuanced situation. There is evidence of intent. This isn’t an instance of mens rea coming into play.

        1. (holds hands up in “what are you gonna do?” gesture)

          My dad was a pretty sharp lawyer, tho never got near ‘criminal’ stuff. He basically said a while ago “shit like this is on a different level and doesn’t follow any of the rules of normal investigations/prosecutions”.

          One, its a politician; two, its during a presidential race. Its double-complicated by these factors and the general attitude of legal-institutions is to *first ensure the protection of the institution*. And part of that protection of the institution means avoiding “Huge decisions which interfere in the political process”.

          He basically said that was why Roberts contorted himself to make Obamacare ‘work’ legally. because shooting down such a giant piece of legislation would put the court itself in a perception of “putting itself above the other branches of govt”. It ceases to be a legal question and more of the existential institutional one. I know that the layperson will say, “But that’s what they’re *supposed to do*” when there is a crisis-situation. But that’s just not how things work in reality – in general, every branch of govt wants to *avoid* being the one left with the hot-potato.

          The DoJ has never in history been in the position of prosecuting someone while they ran for president. By definition, regardless of the facts, they will *probably* avoid doing so if they can.

          Anyway, that’s basically the POV he shared. I personally think its a complete mess and have no idea what will happen.

          1. “The DoJ has never in history been in the position of prosecuting someone while they ran for president. By definition, regardless of the facts, they will *probably* avoid doing so if they can.”

            They sure as hell, and properly so, threatened prosecution of a “resigned” president.
            I’m sure I’m griping *with* you, not *at* you.

          2. He basically said that was why Roberts contorted himself to make Obamacare ‘work’ legally. because shooting down such a giant piece of legislation would put the court itself in a perception of “putting itself above the other branches of govt”.

            Roberts in fact did “shoot down” the legislation when he rewrote it to allow subsidies to be awarded in states that had not set up their own exchanges.

            1. Roberts in fact did “shoot down” the legislation when he rewrote it to allow subsidies to be awarded in states that had not set up their own exchanges.

              I thought the only aspect roberts ruled on was whether the “Mandate” was legal?

              Oh you mean King v. Burwell. I was referencing his “big” first decision. In that latter one… how did it ‘shoot down’ the ACA?

        2. To be clear here, I’m not actually ranting at you. Just ranting on this issue in general. I just get enough of people defending her with these second-hand arguments they get from the talking heads. It’s the one aspect of this election that has me worked up.

  5. Funny how this pleading the fifth only works out for the elite ruling class and their sycophant boot lickers. The peasants who do this go to prison. Rule of law, how does that work?

    1. Meh, I plead the fifth in court against the SEC. I’ll be damned if I’m going to give them my words to play with and twist and play “gotcha”. Martha Stewart shoulda known better. They wanna prove I broke the law? Make them prove it.

      1. Well, we can prove Hillary broke the law in a few seconds, there’s no case for her.

  6. Yeah, let’s concentrate on what’s hidden in the emails.

    In the meantime, Hillary Clinton accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

    It’s so easy to lose sight of the argument, here. It’s been like this since the Bill Clinton Administration. You ask them, “Isn’t what you did disgraceful, Bill?”, and the answer is that it was perfectly legal.

    The same sort of thing happened with the Bush Administration. “Isn’t what you did completely foolish, President Bush?” The answer always came back, “What we did was perfectly legal.”

    So why are we concentrating on Hillary Clinton’s emails? If what she did was illegal, that is completely beside the point. The fact of the matter is that what she’s done–and is still doing–is disgraceful. No Secretary of State that accepts donations from a foreign government should be voted in as President. What she did was disgraceful.

    End of story.

    1. The server is the problem, not the emails. She broke laws, and yet she doesn’t get punished like most people would be punished. Rule of law, who needs that old fashioned stuff anyway.

      1. PHAKE SKANDULL!!!

        It was allowed. Hillary said so. And we all know Hillary doesn’t lie (Jill Abramson said so) and would never lie about something like this. So stop hating on her just because she’s a woman, you sexist TEAthuglikkan troglodyte.

        /progtard

        1. I’ve heard progs say this:

          She was her own boss! Like she didn’t answer to anyone but Obama and he was ok with what she did!

          Umm, really? No rules or laws applied to Hillary when she was Secretary of State? Please, just give these morons a lobotomy and put them out of their misery. I mean it would be a very minor operation.

          1. They really are that stupid and/or dishonest.

      2. She not going to jail.

        If she’s elected, her subordinates won’t prosecute her.

        If she’s elected, Congress would be committing political suicide to impeach her.

        If she loses, Trump isn’t going to squander his political capital on her–she’ll be washed up.

        There isn’t anything that’s going to come of this.

        In the meantime, far as anyone knows, she STILL accepting donations from foreign governments!

        Saudi Arabia has resumed donating again. We shouldn’t ever have had a Secretary of State on a foreign government’s payroll–and having a President on the payroll of a foreign government is a horror movie plot gone over the top.

        She’s the fucking Manchurian candidate for reals.

        She’s not going to jail over emails.

        But if people paid attention, they wouldn’t vote for her–for accepting donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. It’s flabbergasting that people could know this–and she still win the nomination, much less the Presidency.

        Yes. Flabbergasting.

        1. The worst thing that could happen to this evil person is she loses the election and fades into obscurity and no one cares, or remembers, forever.

          1. Yeah, and that’s what I’m gunning for.

            It should be about whether what she did was legal.

            It’s whether what she’s done is disgraceful.

            1. “It should [not] be about whether what she did was legal.”

              You knew what I meant!

            2. It was both illegal and disgraceful, so you’re covered.

              1. There’s a question about being distracted.

                While Obama’s opponents were obsessing over whether his birth certificate was real, he was using the NSA to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of about 300 million Americans.

                So, Hillary accepted millions in donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State?

                Look a squirrel! Right over there by my email server!

        2. On numerous occasions I have tried explaining such things to my prog brother, only for him to reply: “but it’s Trump, he can’t win” or “they such should put Bernie Sanders in charge.”

          Flabbergasting? That’s putting it lightly. All these energized voters seem to care about is the little d or r next to politicians names and the fantastical policies they promise will work this time. To repeat, it is beyond flabbergasting, it’s horrifying.

        3. But if people paid attention, they wouldn’t vote for her–for accepting donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. It’s flabbergasting that people could know this–and she still win the nomination, much less the Presidency.

          It is appalling.

          And I believe most of her voters do know, but simply don’t care.

          We’re very far removed now from fuzzy civic sentiments like rule of law & respect for public office. Political tribalism is the new norm.

        4. Almost no one cares. It’s sad, but the only people who do care already know what she is. It makes no difference. Team players are team players.

          1. Right. The only mandate is to eat or be eaten. Gotta make sure Team Blue wins, so we can fuck over Team Red for the next 4 years.

            And they genuinely love it. It’s really sick stuff.

        5. “flabbergasting” is a fun word.

        6. I eagerly anticipate the “documentary” from Michael Moore investigating her financial ties to the Saudis and whatever otherhorrible regimes have “donated” to her foundation.

          Hahahahahaha

          1. Don’t forget – it was a documentary critical of Hillary that led to the Citizens United case, where “progressives” tried to basically gut the 1st Amendment.

      3. Not saying you’re wrong, but what she did with the server apparently isn’t that abnormal. IIRC, Colin Powell did something similar. There’s probably no bombshell here, and she’s not going to jail or get indicted or anything.

        1. My god, you are a moron.

          1. Morons everywhere are offended.

        2. Not saying you’re wrong, but what she did with the server apparently isn’t that abnormal. IIRC, Colin Powell did something similar.

          Powell never had a private server set up; he was allowed to use a private email, but that was actually authorized. Obama put further restrictions on this when he took office, but Hillary never received official authorization to use a private server. The IG report stated that she asked for authorization, but no one at State would set it up because of the security concerns. So she went ahead and set it up anyway.

          1. Let’s clear this up right now. No secretary of state, since the beginning of the office, has EVER setup a private server for routing and storage of official state department emails. There is only one reason to do this and please feel free to ask your IT friends what that reason is.

            What the media mean when they say that Powell and other SOS did the same, is that they used a private email account to send email about what may have been official SOS business. All of those emails, just the same, would have been routed through, stored, and backed up on the official, secured, Department of the State servers.

            This is an entirely different matter. Hillary intentionally, somehow or other, managed to install a private server for routing and storing emails pertaining to official secretary of state business. Please feel free to try this at home, and enjoy your time in the big rape house.

            The American mainstream media are shameless lying whores.

            1. ^This^

              The whole “BUT COLIN POWELL DID IT TOOOOOOOOO” excuse is pure bullshit.

              Powell’s emails still went through the secured government server and were kept as official records (and had copies produced as backup in case something happened to the originals).

              Hillary skirted the WHOLE security system because she felt like it. She’s fucking corrupt, a goddamn liar, and probably used the private server to hide the foreign solicitations.

              1. It wasn’t illegal when CP did it.

                The law requiring all government data be archived didn’t come about until he was out.

                Clinton likely voted on it as a senator.

            2. I understand that. I have a security clearance myself and am quite familiar with infosec laws. I bust them over the heads of Hillary supporters every chance I get, because they parrot the same stupid talking points that her campaign sends out every time further evidence of her criminal behavior comes to light.

              FdA below puts the counter to the “Powell and Rice did it too” defense much more succinctly than I did.

        3. Cytotoxic|6.1.16 @ 9:10PM|#
          “Not saying you’re wrong, but what she did with the server apparently isn’t that abnormal. IIRC, Colin Powell did something similar.”

          Yeah, and Jefferson kept slaves, too!
          Hyperion is right; you’re a fucking ignoramus.

        4. Colin Powell did something similar.

          No. Having a personal e-mail is in no way anywhere similar to setting up a server in your residence and conducting all official business through said server.

          The first allows for protocol items and minor communications with dignitaries. She conducted EVERYTHING that SoS does through an unsecured, unapproved, and illegal set-up, because she thinks she’s the fucking queen.

          1. Exactly. Some people should remain silent on some issues and retain the dignity of only being thought of as a fool.

          1. From cytotoxic? Muwhahahahahahaha

            1. Cytotoxic is high on Hillarymilk.

        5. “Not saying you’re wrong, but what she did with the server apparently isn’t that abnormal. IIRC, Colin Powell did something similar.”

          Did you read what I wrote about how what she did being legal was the least important thing?

          Is Colin Powell running for President?

          Hillary is running for President.

          And she accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

          It’s disgraceful.

          Whether what Hillary did was illegal is beside the point.

          What Colin Powell did is beside the point, too.

          Is any of this getting through?

          How much money has the Canadian Foreign Minister accepted from foreign governments?

          If he or she did, how long it would take the Canadian people to throw that person in jail isn’t the pertinent question. The pertinent question is whether they would subsequently elect that person Prime Minister.

          1. Given the changes in technology, what Colin Powell did 15 years ago is pretty irrelevant.

    2. That she made such an effort to setup her own private email server outside established channels, should probably lead one to question why she did that and what she might’ve been trying to conceal by doing so.

      Though I agree, the shady donations should be investigated also.

      Odds are all this shit ends up tying together. I assume she was selling influence while during her SoS tenure and didn’t want to be tracked.

      1. I doubt there’s a smoking gun. She didn’t set up the private server to cover her graft vis a vi the Clinton Foundation; she did it to avoid having to comply with FOI requests. Which is still illegal. And gives a perfect window into her mindset.

        1. Also true/plausible.

        2. The existence of the server is the smoking gun.

    3. “In the meantime, Hillary Clinton accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.”

      Further, while that server was under subpoena, she or her representative tampered with the contents.

      1. Right? And all those other emails and hard drives that have mysteriously been lost/broken.
        Any other person in this country would have been in prison already. I’ve been confessing to an unreasonable hatred of HRC, lately, but maybe my hatred of her isn’t so unreasonable after all.
        Seriously, I’d vote for almost anybody if it keeps this… person… out of office.

        1. It’s not unreasonable to despise someone who makes a complete mockery of the laws and rules that would torch people with less money and fewer political connections. It’s not just her blatant flouting of those laws, it’s the passive-aggressive behavior and lawyer-speak mendacity employed by both her and her defenders every time more evidence rolls in that she broke the laws.

          Hillary becoming President is an official confirmation that the rule of law doesn’t mean jack shit. On the other hand, if I’m Chelsea Manning, I’m getting my lawyer to file an immediate motion for dismissal based on the fact that the commander-in-chief broke the same laws I’m getting 30 years for in Leavenworth.

          1. “Hillary becoming President is an official confirmation that the rule of law doesn’t mean jack shit.”

            Specifically, there is the ‘demise’.
            We, as a nation, allow one who has blatantly ignored the law to become president, and we have, as a result, lost the ‘civilized nation look-alike’ contest to……
            who?
            Are we now measurably superior to Russia? I don’t see it.

          2. You get it. I don’t hate her because i disagree with her politics; i hate her because she blatantly broke the law in anticipation of wanting to break another law (FOI), in order to deny the American public access to the records of what she did while “serving” as Secretary of State.
            I mean, it’s like Benedict Arnold had a love child with… uh… Bill Clinton.
            Meanwhile, American patriot Eric Snowden has to hide in Eurasia.
            Anybody who tells me this government is legit is full of it.

      1. Oof for real.

        World’s greatest speaker right there.

        1. I felt bad for a second. maybe two.

          1. Just imagine if that was a Republican president. You’d have the next 2 years to feel bad while that was played over and over and over again on every news outlet and comedy show in the nation.

            1. Applies and oranges. Obama had an off-moment. Republicans are (tautologically) bonafide idiots, so this kind of moment would be representative of a Republican’s stupidity.

              Capiche?

              1. Yeah, sure, you’re right, he’s just been having an off moment for the last 8 years. Happens to everyone.

                1. Need I remind you that he personally shot Osama, gave everyone health care and gave watershed speeches on race?

                  1. I forgot about him swimming the Atlantic, crossing the desert barefoot, and single handedly taking out Bin Laden. I feel so ashamed for dissin the great savior.

            2. Just imagine if that was a Republican president. You’d have the next 2 years to feel bad while that was played over and over and over again on every news outlet and comedy show in the nation.

              Ah, yes? the BOOOOSH years. I’d almost forgot what that was like.

              1. One of them Koreas. I mean, it was funny. What’s not funny is that they’ve had a million chances to do the same to Obama and yet silence. 57 states? Really?

                1. Yeah. I really shouldn’t be surprised by the bipolar double-standards of Prog mockery considering how relentlessly predictable it’s been for many years now.

                  Yet it still manages to astonish me at times.

    1. The great Orator

      1. Holy shit, JB, I was just about to type the exact same thing! Great minds think alike, (:

        1. I mean, remember how much they made fun of Bush? Does anyone ever remember him sounding that stupid? What happened to Captain Bathroom Nazi, did his teleprompter break?

    2. Teleprompter failure.

      1. I really want to know how it worked before the teleprompter. I suppose there were less press interaction.

    3. I work with a guy that talks like that all the time. And he always has to give his opinion on everything at meetings and stop the speaker every 30 seconds in presentations to stammer dumb questions at them. Ugh!

  7. I don’t see what the FBI and DOJ’s grant of immunity for Pagliano’s testimony in their investigation, has anything to do with what he does as a subpoena’d person of interest in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. The two things aren’t connected.

    An interesting question that I don’t know the answer to though, is whether the grant of immunity from the FBI for criminal sanctions arising out of Pagliano’s conduct, sufficiently removes the threat of self-incrimination from Pagliano’s anticipated testimony in the Judicial Watch case, such that he shouldn’t be allowed to claim a Fifth Amendment privilege from answering JW’s questions. The point of taking the Fifth is that you’re afraid of going to jail based on what you honestly answer when questioned. If the authorities have said they won’t sanction you, no matter what you say, (and no relevant state jurisdiction can take a crack at you) where’s the self-incrimination worry?

    I still think she gets indicted, after the Convention nominates her, leaving the Dems with trying to spotlight her VP as a worthy opponent to Trump (President Kaine, anyone?), but this might be an obstacle to that happening.

    1. I don’t see the connection really, either. And it seems far simpler to say he just wants to fuck with Judicial Watch.

      1. I’m sure he’s been informed to not talk because these people don’t have any power to fuck him over. The FBI however, he’s going to be facing an entirely different situation. I’m sure they have a lot more arm twisting power and can no doubt make him think better about protecting his former employee at all cost to himself.

    2. Never ever give up your 5th, If I learned anything from watching “The Shield” it was this, this and don’t trust that toothy muthr fuckr as far as you can throw ‘im.

    3. I don’t see what the FBI and DOJ’s grant of immunity for Pagliano’s testimony in their investigation, has anything to do with what he does as a subpoena’d person of interest in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. The two things aren’t connected.

      Really? Ok sure yeah… That makes much more sense.

    4. Well it doesn’t, you’re right.

  8. Can anyone tell me what evidence would indicate intent here with Hillary’s server? Because from where I’m sitting, it seems like a word that just gets tossed around to justify the decision not to charge her. She broke the law by the letter of it, and they’d have enough evidence to show intent if it were anyone else. But apparently in this one they need a confession that she set the server up to break the laws, and ignorance of the law despite training and her experience in government is an excuse.

    1. Strict liability applies in state secrets cases. Intent is not required.

      Of course, that only applies to the little folk.

    2. I’m aware of that. I mean, just as an enlisted member of the military you are given a brief on that during your initial training, and from then on you can’t use ignorance as an excuse. That simple. This is why the focus on intent pisses me off. It’s just obfuscation. She received training when she became Secretary of State on how to handle federal records and classified material. She was in charge of implementing compliance as head of the State Department. I’ve seen the likes of DailyKos claim there that she sets the policy as the department head which itself is bull. You can find the memos sent out online. These are guidelines issued to department heads. They don’t have the discretion to ignore it, and you can’t in good faith claim ignorance of the standard.

      1. I’m sorry, did you say something? Because all I heard was garble garble.

      2. So apparently you want to make conflict on a point where there is no conflict (aka act like a cunt). Well, OK then.

          1. Don’t be stupid you moron.

            1. It’s “I told you not to be stupid, you moron.”
              I thought you were a Stern fan.

        1. G’s move in pronounced dickishness like Gloryholes.

      3. This is why the focus on intent pisses me off. It’s just obfuscation.

        Exactly.

        Look at it like this. They say they’re investigating Hillary, but that’s just the public face. Hillary has power. Lots of it. What they’re investigating isn’t her guilt – it’s whether there’s enough opposing power to overcome hers and hold her accountable.

        She’s guilty as sin and the world knows it.

    3. She broke law concerning retention of the data for one thing. If you don’t know about these laws, google it or ask someone you know who works in IT. I’m not typing this out for the 300th time on the intertoobz. Or if you want, just try taking home the email server of your goverment employer and putting it in your basement, even though you aren’t sec of state and see how fast you wind up in prison.

      1. I’ve gone and read the laws looking into this myself. And I have at least some experience in this area (not at any high level). I’m harping on that word intent that keeps getting thrown around in the media and even by people who should know better.

        1. “I wasn’t intending to speed.”

          1. This is a little more serious than speeding, unless you were going 100 mph through a school zone and trying your best to run down children.

            1. That’s true. It was the first analogy in my head.

        2. The media is full of shit. Every spin they’ve tried to put on this is lies, deflections, obfuscations, they’re shameless sycophants. There’s apparently no tape backups of these servers to be found for the entire time Clinton was SOS, that’s a federal crime. The voting public has been dumbed down to the level of sheep.

          1. This.

            Last month, the State Department announced that nearly all archived emails sent to and from Pagliano had been lost.

            Full stop. “You, fuckface in charge of the email archives — start talking.”

            1. I said from the very beginning of this bullshit (both the IRS thing with Lerner and Clinton after), that congress should have summoned the entire IT department to a hearing and just told them flat out ‘you have 48 hours to produce the backups of this data, or people start getting indicted on federal charges, starting with you’.

              If our government has just decided to throw out the rule of law, they’re going to suffer the consequences of that, eventually, just like everyone else. They better get their heads out of their own asses and start thinking consequences.

              1. Well said.

          2. The voting public has been dumbed down to the level of sheep.

            Seemingly, but this shit is going to tank her. Bernie supporters are going to turn to Trump in much larger numbers than to Hillary.

            Full disclosure: I can read minds.

            1. No they aren’t and no they’re not. You’re living in a fantasy bubble.

              1. I’ve talked to many, many Bernie supporters in Berkeley. Anecdotal, sure, but on what are you basing your assumption?

                1. “but on what are you basing your assumption?”

                  The fact that these people identify as anti-racist do-gooders and Trump is the opposite of that, so they will define themselves by voting against Trump and for Hillary.

                  1. There is some of that. I think you’re right that the majority of Bernie’s supports will hold their nose and vote team, just like most Republicans will end up pulling the lever for Trump.
                    I do think that there is a cohort in both parties that will refuse to comprise their principles, and will vote for someone else.
                    Johnson gets some #nevertrump’ers, I think Hillary gets more.
                    I do believe a significant number of Bernie people are principled, just ignorant. I think Trump will pick up a significant fraction of that fraction of Bernie supporters.

                    1. Bernie and Trump appeal to two completely different set of white losers that identify as the opposites of each other. Very very few berntards are going to vote Trump. Hyperion is pretty much an expert at making awful predictions. I remember after the initial dem primaries that Hillary fared poorly in he was tittering about her going down in flames. Fantasy.

                    2. Yeah, I’m not citing Hyperion, I’m giving you my opinion. It will be interesting, after the election, to do the autopsy, i.e.: Who voted for who, etc.

                  2. Cytotoxic dear child, not everyone is as one-dimensional as you.

            2. While I don’t agree more Bernie supporters will go to Trump than Clinton, you live in Canada and seem to base everything you know off the media and polls. By the way, those aren’t looking so hot for her, are they? Some portion of Bernie supporters answering those are in fact going to Trump.

              1. But the great leader, Zoolander, has imparted vast wisdom about Murika on the young peasants of his kingdom.

              2. I don’t know how anyone following these magnificent Polls can still be so hardheadedly certain that Clinton will trounce Trump. They seem to indicate the opposite.

                1. “They seem to indicate the opposite.”

                  No they don’t see below.

                  See also: http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..5491.html#!

                  Her lead is small, but Trump has never had an edge on her. That’s why there’s about 4 pixels of red in the spread below the graph. And mind this is after Trump got his post-nomination ‘bounce’ and before the Hillary campaign has inundated the airwaves with footage of Trump saying retarded shit. I do hope you like that stuff because it’s ALL that you’ll be seeing from here to Nov 15.

                  1. I’m more interested in the derivative.

                    Hillary’s campaign is incompetent, attacking Trump on aspects with which Hillary has far more baggage; and Trump saying retarded shit is par for the course now and even now broadcast all over the media anyway. Meanwhile, Hillary’s support has hit a ceiling, and her skeletons have yet to really be smeared all over the proverbial walls by Trump.

                    Furthermore, voting is private and Bernie supporters are ticked off, at ‘the establishment’ in the abstract and at the DNC and Hillary in particular.

                    It’s not just about the numbers du jour.

                    But, we’ll see.

                  2. It’s worse for Trump than that. I didn’t click the link, but I’m assuming its popular opinion of likely voters.
                    But the poplar vote doesn’t decide the presidency, the Electoral College does. And team donkey has a pretty good head start in the EC. That’s not everything of course; W won two terms.

                2. Clinton was up 37 points in the RCP avg at one time, maybe 6 months ago. Last time I checked, yesterday, they were wavering back and forth barely 1 point apart.

                  Still too soon to make predictions, but the 40 point lead thing was what it was, WAY too soon to make predictions. Yet it didn’t stop the leftist media from gloating.

                  Wait until Oct and then we will talk about what the polls mean.

                  1. Polls start becoming predictive in mid-May, and those polls have Clinton out ahead.

              3. “By the way, those aren’t looking so hot for her, are they?”

                http://electiongraphs.com/2016ec/

                1. Darn me I keep forgetting that objectivity and reliance on evidence and facts are for homo liberal faggots or some such.

                  1. An electoral college breakdown on polling data in June isn’t all that factual. The gap between Hillary and Trump has narrowed of late and the full campaign hasn’t gotten going yet. You desperately want to pretend what you present carries more weight than it does.

                    1. “The gap between Hillary and Trump has narrowed of late ”

                      It narrowed before only for Hillary to pull away again. Like I said: he’s never had the edge on her.

                      Also, general polling starts to become predictive in May so you can can the ‘polls don’t mean anything’ canard now.

                    2. And how predictive are they in may, and how predictive is it to use 50 individual state polls to tally out up electoral college votes? That’s 50 polls all with their own margins of error. And what does it tell us? Well, nothing more than what is already known – it’s a straighter shot for any Dem to take the White House and the electoral college. Didn’t need any poll for that. Your choice of which poll you used isn’t a coincidence, either.

                    3. You desperately want to pretend what you present carries more weight than it does.

                      That describes Cytotoxic to a “t”.

                  2. As Hyperion’s pointing out, Cytotoxic, her trend v Trump is dogshit, and getting worse. She may not even beat out Sanders for CA; she’s such a terrible candidate. I think she’ll look better in a hypothetical Presidential debate v Trump than many say, if only because it’s really hard to do worse than Trump (Ol’ Gary Johnson might be up to it though).

                    Before that, though, she needs the superdelegates to beat Bernie. It’s really unlikely she can amass enough regular delegates to win without them. So, she’s going to have to kiss up to them, and that, IMHO, means taking whoever they tell her to as her VP. More on this in a sec.

                    She actually has a good chance of losing this one. Vs Trump?! TPTB in the Democratic Party, and those signing the checks, aren’t going to put up with this.

                    Expect her to go to the Convention, duke it out with Bernie and his supporters, win, throw him/them an olive branch of some sort, and accept an establishment VP. I think it might be Kaine; there are others, instead of the Castro or Booker she might get instead.

                    She then gets indicted, pardoned—hey, it worked for Ford and Nixon— and steps down with a giant chest full of money. And the Democrats win with somebody not entirely hated by a good chunk of America.

                    1. “her trend v Trump is dogshit”

                      No it isn’t look at the graph. She *ought* to be stronger, but Trump has never had an edge on her except for 5 minutes last week and that was like 0.4% or something.

                      “She may not even beat out Sanders for CA”

                      308 has her chances at about 90%. She will probably win.

                      “Before that, though, she needs the superdelegates to beat Bernie. It’s really unlikely she can amass enough regular delegates to win without them. ”

                      Wrong again. She’s got it mathematically sewn up.

                      The only thing you got right is that if she were replaced by Biden or someone else, the landslide would be even bigger.


                    2. “Before that, though, she needs the superdelegates to beat Bernie. It’s really unlikely she can amass enough regular delegates to win without them. “

                      Wrong again. She’s got it mathematically sewn up.

                      Do you even bother to check the facts or do you just knee jerkingly respond?

                      Clinton has 1769 non-super delegates. She needs 2383 for the nomination. There are ~700 left in primaries. Unless she pretty much sweeps all of them, she is relying on superdelegates to put her over the top. Superdelegates that can change their support right up to the convention balloting as easily as they change their socks.

                    3. Are you people fighting with Cytotoxic?

                      Why not just do what playa did with Buttplug = Make a “put your money where your mouth is” bet.

                      at the very least it makes people drop their petty “nuh uh!”/”un huh!” tete-a-tete

  9. Granted, it’s not the same, but this nevertheless reminds me of another person who refused to testify in a matter pertaining to the Clinton’s……….

    “Susan McDougal … is one of the few people who served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy although fifteen individuals were convicted of various federal charges. Her refusal to answer “three questions” for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial led her to receive a jail sentence of 18 months for contempt of court. …. McDougal received a full Presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

  10. Pagliano’s lawyers requested the court provide a protective order for their client, calling him “a nonparty caught up in a lawsuit with an undisputed political agenda.”

    Oh, FFS! Please, let Hillary’s lawyers try that.

  11. Which is your favorite Yellinism?

    1 WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING TO HEAD OFF A FINANCIAL CRISIS
    2 FED’S HANDLING OF FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS MAGNIFICENT
    3 QE, FORWARD GUIDANCE HAVE HELPED ECONOMY RECOVER
    4 WE DIDN’T SEE HOW HOUSING BUBBLE CREATED SYSTEMIC RISK
    5 WE ARE TRYING NOW TO DO BETTER JOB OF SEEING RISKS
    6 WE ARE FOCUSED ON SYSTEMIC RISK, FINANCIAL STABILITY
    7 WE’RE BRINGING NEW MINDSET TO HOW WE OVERSEE BIG FIRMS
    8 QUANTITY, QUALITY OF BANK CAPITAL HAS IMPROVED
    9 ECONOMY IS CONTINUING TO IMPROVE
    10 WITH GAINS, HIKE IN COMING MONTHS MAY BE APPROPRIATE
    11 DON’T HAVE TYPICAL SCOPE TO CUT RATES IN CASE OF SHOCK
    12 AMERICA OWES BERNANKE ENORMOUS DEBT OF GRATITUDE
    13 CAPITALISM IS BEST ECONOMIC SYSTEM BUT CAN BREAK DOWN

    1. *Oops, wrong thread.

    2. 10 is the not.
      I mean, squirrels.
      I mean, Hitler?
      Ooh, I got it: You know who else tried to use a central bank to plan the economy?

    3. WHY ARE YOU YELLING?

      … Hobbit

      1. Why are you Yellin, G?

  12. So does this void his immunity?

    1. Or just his bowels?

  13. Seems apropros: Ex-managers portray Trump University as a ‘fraudulent scheme’ in unsealed lawsuit documents

    “One sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, recounted how he was reprimanded for not pushing a financially struggling couple hard enough to sign up for a $35,000 real estate class, despite his conclusion that it would endanger their economic future. He watched with disgust, he said, as a fellow Trump University salesman persuaded the couple to purchase the class anyway.

    Corrine Sommer, an event manager, recounted how colleagues encouraged students to open up as many credit cards as possible to pay for classes that many of them could not afford.

    “It’s OK, just max out your credit card,” Sommer recalled their saying.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/n…..-documents

    A fraudulent university is far less of a threat to American than an SoS who accepts foreign government bribes and breaks server email rules (that admittedly were broken by others somewhat commonly). As far as politics is concerned, it’s flipped: like it or not, no one really gives a shit about the emails. This is pretty much the definition of insider baseball. Trump University OTOH is a goldmine of material for Clinton to work with. I can see the ads now “I was pressured into ripping off grandparents and I said no. Vote Clinton.”

    1. ? why are you so dumb? Is this a Canadian thing?

      1. Just another WaPo level Hillary troll. Canadians are some of the best commenters here.

        1. Canadians are some of the best commenters here.

    2. “I’m too stupid to make rational decisions. Vote Clinton!”

  14. Hillary trolls are getting desperate.

    1. I really hate this woman, and I just can’t fathom how she even has supporters.

      1. Dare you to look up videos of her supporters venerating positive qualities about her.

      2. Dare you to look up videos of her supporters venerating positive qualities about her.

        1. Oh, fuck you doublepost.

        2. I accept the challenge. Stand by for derp.

          1. Mfckr is a bad man, and he’s done a bad thing.

  15. Based on the reaction to the dead gorilla, I think animal rights will be the next cudgel the left will use to bully people.

    If the the same thing happened 40 years ago, the only reaction would be “thank god the kid wasn’t hurt”.

    1. If the the same thing happened 40 years ago, the only reaction would be “thank god the kid wasn’t hurt”.

      I think even 10 years ago that would’ve been the common reaction.

      I was thinking about this earlier and trying to discern what’s change between now and then. The only thing different really is the ubiquity of social media for people to vent indignation on demand. But I don’t think this is ascribable to that.

      1. Social media is the change. It’s (a) we’re seeing more of everyone else’s opinions, so they seem more widespread than before, or [inclusive] (b) everyone else is seeing more of everyone else’s opinions, and our natural tribal tendencies play out on the internet = ‘take a side’ (probably the side of people you like and whom you want to continue to like you).

        “Oh, you know, maybe this is the worst thing evar, if everyone says it is.”

        1. The more important change consequent of social media’s rise is that it allows strangers to shame strangers more easily.

          Even if someone read that story in the newspaper and thought, “WORST THING EVAR. PARENTS SHOULD BE SHOT,” they would rant to whoever was physically nearby and that would be it.

          Though, this stuff happened even prior to the internet, facilitating by different forms of media.

          Let’s just say it’s the result of the increasing forms of media increasing in their capacity to connect everyone to everyone else. The only solution is to make like Ron Swanson to try to enjoy yourself before the inevitable sting of the hivemind.

          1. We’ve all become our grandpa, yelling at the TV as if the newsman can hear him.

            A million annoyed elderly, their voices rising as one…

            1. lol, pithy

              exactly

      2. I think it is because the media are eager to latch on to stupid, contrary shit – so that’s what gets promoted. “Thank god the kid wasn’t hurt” is boring so they don’t air it.

        1. Or it may be that that we’ve become a nation full of pussies.

        2. That sounds right. Tragedy and especially outrage sell. Happy stories don’t. Since the kid wasn’t ripped to shreds (sorry, media!), let’s reframe the narrative so it’s still outrageous.

          1. A lot of its sensationalist trolling too?dunno how much is truly sincere outrage.

            I know on Twitter the gorilla thing instantly became a race issue, with blacks saying the zoo wouldn’t have shot the gorilla if an overly curious white child hadn’t meandered into the cage, and that it was like a microcosm of how white colonizers treated Africa?

            Then of course they find out later the kid was actually black. And further hilarity ensues.

            Anyway, point being that a lot of perceived outrage seems exaggerated for comical effect.

            But then it makes sense that many journalists?because they’re either too old to have grown up on the internet, or are out of touch weirdos with crippled empathy?might improperly infer what’s actually going on when they do coverage on it.

            1. I know on Twitter the gorilla thing instantly became a race issue, with blacks saying the zoo wouldn’t have shot the gorilla if an overly curious white child hadn’t meandered into the cage, and that it was like a microcosm of how white colonizers treated Africa?

              I wonder if now they’ll maybe somewhat reconsider their general assumptions??

              Ha.

              But then it makes sense that many journalists?because they’re either too old to have grown up on the internet, or are out of touch weirdos with crippled empathy?might improperly infer what’s actually going on when they do coverage on it.

              Have you ever texted with old people? It’s like we’re speaking a different language.

              Yeah, Poe’s law goes deep.

              1. I don’t know what ‘old’ is supposed to be, but… at 47 I find that I often simply cannot understand what the hell teenagers around me are saying. It’s really odd.

                1. I find myself proofreading my texts, making sure i include caps and punctuation. I’m sure i come across as almost unreadable to the kids.
                  Well fuck them, they’ll get their turn to be the old grouchy people. Meanwhile, get the hell off of my lawn!

      3. Rewind a few centuries, take their cell phones and replace them with pitchforks.

        It really doesn’t ever change.

        1. At least people didn’t crash their buggies playing with their pitchforks.

      4. I don’t want to sound like a one track record (vinyl cd, young’uns’), but the fall of the soviet union was bad for freedom. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but without a communist enemy to be against, the US is no longer the country of freedom. I don’t why China doesn’t fulfill the same need, i guess it’s because they are not paying ‘ Risk’ against us, at least not to the extent the Ruskies were.

        1. What’s a ‘cd’?

    2. I’m thinking back to that time a woman got horribly mauled by her pet chimp. Why the hell would anyone want to risk something similar with a gorilla?

      1. Chimps are fucking deranged, macabre beasts that enjoy killing & mutilating in the wild.

        A gorilla would just be more liable to kill someone by inadvertently tossing them around like a ragdoll. But aren’t known to be gore fiends like chimps.

  16. Hillary for Prison 2016!

    1. Hillary for the WhiteBig House!

    2. Now there’s a good bumper sticker or T-shirt.

  17. Spot the Not: quotes from Clinton supporters

    1. Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name.

    2. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table.

    3. Hillary Clinton, with her long experience, especially as Secretary of State, has a firm grasp of the issues and will be prepared to lead our country on day one.

    4. Clinton has been a Senator and a Secretary of State, not to mention playing an active role as First Lady in her husband’s administration. She’s been breaking glass ceilings her whole life and there’s no one better for breaking this one.

    5. ? I really wish she hadn’t given those six-figure talks to Goldman Sachs. But I genuinely believe she’ll make the best president.

    6. ? I really don’t want to see her abused again. I’m tired of seeing her confronted by entitled men weighing in on her personal honesty and likability, treating the most admired woman in the world like a woman who’s applying to be his secretary.

    1. I say 2. I just can’t imagine where that sentence would fit into any Hillary apologia, invoking and pontificating about Obama’s perspective. (I mean, are they so ignorant that they don’t know that the Clintons and Obamas dislike each other?) Also the lowercase, nonspecific “secretary”?if that’s a real quote, that’s hilarious. Hillary: Obama’s secretary.

    2. They all sound plausible to me. Well done.

    3. 2 looks like the odd one out to me as well.

      1. Mostly because the phrase ‘star power’. But it wouldn’t be that surprising if its non-fake.

    4. They all sound truthy, but I think #5 is the only one I haven’t actually run across before. If I’m right, then I am spending way, way too much time on the Internet.

      1. If you’re wrong… you still very well might be.

    5. 6 – i simply can’t believe anyone calls her the “most admired woman in the world”

    6. The reals came from Jerry Brown, Joan Walsh, and the editorial board of The New York Times.

      1. Come on, man, I need answers. I gotta go to bed!

        1. 4 is the Not. I made it up. 1 and 2 are from the NYT, 3 is from Jerry Brown, and 5 and 6 are from Joan Walsh.

          Sources to follow shortly.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01……html?_r=0

          1. that was a good fake one

          2. Super good. Maybe you should apply for a job at one of these fine publications, Derpetto.

            1. Eh, there’s no thrill in deceiving people that stupid.

              1. Not thrill. Thrilla!

                No wait, sorry. Ahem. $crilla!

          3. I would’ve guessed that 4 was straight from Jezebel.

            1. Now I want to catfish them. I’ll create a blue-haired, nose-ringed lesbo alter-ego named Deirdre Palmer and see how many articles I can publish.

              DEiRdre Palmer.

    7. “1. Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name.”

      Well, you know, except for the actual security procedures at the department which she headed.

      1. They meant she “has done her work from home.”

    8. For those who guessed wrong, which is all of you, choose the form of the destructor:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pg-HR2bmvU

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJoJWY1VFM

      1. Even ignoring the lyrics, how can people make music like this without an iota of irony or self-awareness?

        It’s one of the enduring mysteries of life for me.

      2. Just… wow.

      3. i actually switched, thinking ‘the other one’ couldn’t possibly be as bad.

        oh, but i was wrong.

        who has brain-bleach?

    9. 2. Even Clinton supporters know that Obama and Hillary don’t really like each other.

  18. New Reason.tv video popped up in my Youtube (don’t see it on the site here)

    How the Federal Government Is Killing Free Speech on Campus

    Featuring the Beautifully-Pelted One …. and Matt @ “Reason Weekend” in Philly. which i never heard about, i don’t think.

    1. Interesting mention by matt …. “Robby runs rings around [other Reason writers]. in terms of actual page-views”

      Because other publications link to any of these goofy “Crazy shit happening @ X University” stories? Or because we all trash-talk the shit out of him in the comments? I have no idea.

      He (robby) also describes himself as being a young college *hard-right conservative*. I’m not sure what that really means other than maybe the spectrum of left-right on colleges is very very different than the (so-called) “real world”

      He comports himself well @ the event, from what i’ve seen.

      1. It’s because we’re as prone to clickbait as anyone else, just it’s a different sort of clickbait. “Dumb university students doing dumb things? This ought to be good.”

        Not that his stories are intended primarily as clickbait, but they’re pretty frivolous examples?albeit of a genuinely upsetting shift overall in attitudes at universities and among certain cohorts.

        1. In fairness, who doesn’t love trashing dumbshit college students?

    2. It’s listed on the site’s home page, I accidentally found out by clicking the wrong place or pressing enter before finishing typing out “reason.com/blog”

      I mean, who goes to reason.com proper anyway?

      Oh beautiful Robby…

    3. My favorite bit from the video

      re: that its not all about Title IX… that the campus kookiness is also about =

      “feigning oppression delivers attention, and attention is social-currency”

      Which i think is much farther than he’s ever gone in his actual writing to diagnose the campus zeitgeist

    4. Also = Matt looks good with unshaven-scruff and no-tie.

    5. Also very interesting point by Matt =

      the median viewer of cable news programs is 70
      fox business was 69
      newspapers & opinion sections are in the mid-60s
      Basically, anything “political opinion journalism”… is almost all “Old old old men”

      Reason skews younger – but not by as much as you think (all you fuckers are too old)

      Robby & ENB bring the yoot which improves the magazines advert & donor profile. Who knew!?

      1. OK, I just watched Matt pitch that line.
        What format do younger people watch-read-listen to- whatever? Is it only old farts who search for information?

        1. Most people 18-34 get their news from Derpbook and Derpfeed, that is, if they choose to pay attention to the news at all.

          1. That’s not fair.

            We also get it from Snapchat and Instagram (Kylie Jenner news, for instance). Sometimes even Reddit.

            1. Not looking good…

              1. You’ll regret airing your opinions once President Kylie Jenner learns about them.

  19. Indictment? Who cares?

    “The Rasmussen poll released Tuesday found 71 percent of Democratic voters believe she should keep running even if indicted, a view shared by only 30 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of unaffiliated voters. Overall, 50 percent of those polled said she should keep running.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..tcmp=hpbt1

    1. I too think that she should keep running.

    2. This is what people actually believe.

  20. ISIS news round-up:

    1. Coalition drop fake ISIS leave passes to encourage desertion. Probably would work better if they had not made a press release about it.

    2. Blasting Bollywood music at them also seems to help.

    3. Fat-ass ISIS head chopper captured and frog-marched by Kurds.

    1. 2 is the not.

    2. #2 is the Not.

    3. Coalition drop fake ISIS leave passes to encourage desertion. Probably would work better if they had not made a press release about it.

      It’s shit like this that makes me doubt the seriousness of our war effort.

    4. Although Muzzy fundies are strangely fond of club music:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3DB0YYGVs8

      1. In all seriousness, Egypt has been one of the big producers of dance music the last few years.

        It’s really such a shame that the whole Middle East is shackled to Islam. The people there are still the same that created civilization, they’ve just been enslaved to ignorance by Islam.

          1. just came across this and thought of you

            1. I was just watching that the other day! The used to do a much better job of spoofing the military. I liked the Homer in the Naval Reserve one the best.

              Yeah, yeah, yeah- the military is for losers and morons, unless it’s someone Team Blue likes, like JFK.

              1. Although their parody commercial is spot on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62tnJtLBQzQ

                For the USMC anyway.

                /obligatory interservice rivalry

                1. Things I’ve found super-duper retarded about the Army since 9/11 (all of them are quasi related)

                  UCP/ACUPAT

                  the first camo pattern to actually make your self-esteem vanish

                  – “Future Force Warrior” – basically, how they spent a few billion $ developing all of this ‘networked solider’ peripheral bullshit, but then “learned” that battery technology to make it last more than an hour was maybe 10+ years away…. and have since learned that they could pretty much have spent a few grand and had some kid write them an iPhone app to do all the same shit. (*which is what i think JSOC did and has now become wider-used)

                  – Everyone gets to wear berets now. But berets are freaking gay

                  Trivia = do you know how they’re connected?

                  1. I was one of the last batches to get couch camo. The new stuff looks much like the old woodland pattern from the 1980s.

                    They also made some laser tag thing called MILES in the 70s, but it was heavy and unreliable.

                    The beret thing? That’s supposed to mean that soldier is elite, which must be some strange new use of “elite” of which I was not previously aware.

                    Pretty sure they were all the idea of the same general.

                    1. Pretty sure they were all the idea of the same general.

                      Close enough = Erik Shinseki. As if his military career weren’t stupendous enough, he also oversaw the VA when it went completely to shit.

                    2. They also made some laser tag thing called MILES in the 70s, but it was heavy and unreliable.

                      There’s been a couple of generations of MILES equipment. The stuff worked relatively decently when I used it (late 90’s) other than putting a M16’s transmitter next to a firing 60 would cause it to operate without actually firing the M16. Sometimes a hit would fail to register, but few managed to outrun the god gun.

                    3. the old woodland pattern

                      *sigh*

  21. And when the courts fail us, we can find salvation in machine-work pron!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKmwi2QR3Ug

  22. Its time we stopped putting up a god bother as our nominee. We need to vote for Gary Johnson to show the Repukes they can no longer take our support for granted. Times we forced Jesesus freak trailer trash in Alabama to say we are no longer part of your coalition. Cede to freedom or were not voting for u.

    1. Times we forced Jesesus freak trailer trash in Alabama to say we are no longer part of your coalition

      uh huh, well best of luck with that, Mr Super-Smart and Enlightened

      Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined ? Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.

      the % of people who actually practice or adhere to a specific denomination is shrinking (and fast)… still, acting like you’re intellectually superior (while also apparently unable to spell) and pissing on “trailer trash” isn’t exactly the recipe for expanding Libertarian Party membership

      Also = you might want to re-read the 1st amendment more carefully.

  23. Bryan Pagliano was advised by the FBI to plead the 5th Amendment. They do not want him to reveal what he has already told them, so that Cheryl Mills, Hillary, Huma Abedin, Patrick Kennedy, and others who have the same lawyers, cannot twist their answers and make Bryan look like the liar.

    1. Bryan Pagliano was advised by the FBI to plead the 5th Amendment. They do not want him to reveal what he has already told them

      Yeah this basically what we guessed after we realized that his immunity deal was still in force

    2. They do not want him to reveal what he has already told them

      well i assume some of them mostly know what that is anyway (aka “The Truth”), but i guess how he characterizes things they may have said to him might matter more

      Cheryl Mills, Hillary, Huma Abedin, Patrick Kennedy, and others who have the same lawyers,

      this i didn’t know. I thought Pat Kennedy at the least would be represented differently – as he’s (unless im mistaken) still working for the State Dept?

      I always thought after Pagliano got immunity that Kennedy would be the next to “come clean” and testify for the FBI. he still may, I have no idea, but my superficial impression is that he’s not in the same ‘inner-inner-circle’ of Hillary People as the ‘aides’ like Huma & Mills.

  24. If you can stomach it, slimeball extraordinaire Mark Ames discusses Gary Johnson:

    https://youtu.be/vaZY2FGryFo?t=13m

    1. he can’t even talk about GJ’s 1994 election without extensive speculation that it was all some kind of conspiracy/trick and only an accident because Dems weren’t better-organized at the time. and he ‘stole’ their policy ideas.

      then he says everything about Gay Jay is a PR fraud perpetuated by the Koch network.

      the host then summarizes libertarianism as “feudalism built on bizarre metaphysics and bad novels by Ayn Rand”

      then they laugh about how people who opposed drone programs have poor social-skills and talk funny.

      And then caveats “well i hate drones, but i’d much rather have someone like obama overseeing it than Gary Johnson”

      They’re so sophisticated and smart.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.