Hillary Clinton

Is There a "Conservative Case For Letting Clinton Skate"?

No, but there's a strong pragmatic and libertarian case for honest transparency in government action and conduct.

|

Hillary Clinton
Chad J. McNeely, Dept. of Defense

While FBI Director James Comey recommended the Justice Department not pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, he didn't exactly stint on criticism of her actions and those of her staff. Indeed, given his long list of particulars, his prosecutorial cop-out was a non sequitur.

Be that as it may. Over at Bloomberg View, national security writer Eli Lake (an occasional Reason contributor) lays out "the conservative case for letting Clinton skate." It is to my mind pretty creative and pretty unconvincing.

Part of Lake's case is that much of the classified and top-secret stuff that was almost certainly what Comey was talking about was already widely known and discussed in the media.

Many outlets have reported that some of [the Clinton materials] dealt with the U.S. targeted killing program. Until recently these drone strikes were considered top secret. At the same time they were widely reported and discussed in Washington, to the point where President Barack Obama himself joked about his drone strikes at a White House Correspondents Association dinner.

"We know that until very recently the administration considered the discussion of specific targeted killing operations to be highly classified, and in fact covert action," said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. "Outside of government most people find that ridiculous because it has been reported around the world." 

And there's this larger point Lake makes:

Conservatives have an interest in diminishing state secrecy, not empowering it. Even for something like the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, the mishandling of classified information played a crucial role in exposing the White House narrative that the attack was really a demonstration gone awry. Had it not been for timely leaks of classified assessments, the public would not have known until after the 2012 election how many U.S. officials on the ground contradicted the White House line.

Read the full article here.

Come on, get real. "Conservatives" and Republicans are interested in diminishing state secrecy only when a Democrat or liberal is in the White House. Or perhaps even more narrowly, only when it suits their political or electoral ends. I remember very few right wingers being happy when whistleblowers such as William Binney, Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, or Edward Snowden came along. At the start of the War on Terror, characters such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John Ashcroft were never slow to suggest that loose lips sink ships and that even congressional demands for information were either not really necessary or advisable.

And when it comes to Clinton specifically, she has a long record of trying to lower the biggest boom she can on people she thinks compromised state secrets.

That said, I do appreciate the gesture Lake (disclosure: a friend) is making here and I do think it touches on a larger point.

Whether the powerful like it or not, or know it or not, transparency is upon us and it's going to be harder and harder—if not downright impossible—for governments, corporations, churches, you name it, to keep things hidden. There are just too many ways for the beans to be spilled. The proper and effective response to this new age is not to double or triple down on secrecy laws but for governments to live in the light of the day and have fewer secrets. That means giving up the ability to act however a government wants, but it also means that the decisions for which it makes convincing arguments will actually be supported by its citizens. The same goes for corporations and other organizations.

When Wikileaks dumped a huge cache of diplomatic messages in 2010 conservatives called for "whacking" the organization even though the United States came out looking relatively good. Unlike many other countries, we didn't say one thing publicly about our intentions and something very different during private communications with other members of the American government. THAT sort of honesty and integrity is the only defense against revelations in the Age of Transparency, but it also means a willingness (or even necessity) for actually being, well, honest and having integrity. That's something that is all too often in short supply in governments and their functionaries.

Advertisement

NEXT: NYC Councilman Completely Fabricates Child Sex-Trafficking Ring

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.

  1. Eli Lake is an idiot. If the FBI refused to recommend indictment as part of a general common sense approach to these things, Lake would be right. But the FBI has gotten much worse about going after leaks in recent years and letting Clinton off won’t change that. There is no case for this other than Fuck you.

    1. She’s a prominent, professional politician. Commentators deferential to authority will always construct justifications for leniency in cases that threaten to actually punish agents of government for their misdeeds.

      1. True, but the justification is very real. To the degree possible, our judicial resources must be focused on defending the reputations of powerful and influential members of the community. This is why certain forms of speech that nobody likes are criminalized, despite any so-called free-speech nonsense. Who would dare to defend the “First Amendment dissent” filed by a single, isolated, liberal judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        Indeed, news items on that case reveal that it was prosecuted as a private favor to a well-connected New York University department chairman; the NYTimes even quotes the chairman himself as boasting of the special treatment he was given, on account of his contacts with the FBI (“You know how the F.B.I. says, ‘once you’re one of ours, you’re always one of ours?’ ” he said. “It’s totally true.'”)

        Or take the various individuals who have been charged with crimes for writing anti-bank slogans on the sidewalk with chalk. Prosecutors know what’s best, and in this regard they’e clearly acting on behalf of important private interests.

        By contrast, take the Wall Street executives who destroyed the economy and who of course are not to be indicted for any crimes they may have committed. The district attorney of Manhattan was himself a white-collar defense lawyer before he was appointed to his position. All of this is perfectly logical, and perfectly conservative.

        1. Ingredients
          3 pounds rabbit, cut into stew sized pieces
          1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
          1/4 cup grapeseed oil
          3 tablespoons butter
          1 cup celery, diced
          2 cups diced carrots
          2 onions, finely diced
          Salt
          Freshly ground black pepper
          3 bay leaves
          6 cups water
          4 cups red wine
          4 medium-sized potatoes, diced
          1/2 cup sliced sauteed mushrooms

          Using half the flour (3/4 cup) coat the pieces of rabbit, shaking off any excess. Heat the oil and butter in a large heavy-bottomed saucepan, and brown the floured rabbit on all sides. Add the celery, carrots, onions, salt, pepper, bay leaves, 6 cups water and red wine, and stew for about 2 hours. Add the potatoes 45 minutes into the stewing process. Once the rabbit and all the vegetables are cooked, use some water to form a paste with the remaining 3/4 cup flour. Stir the flour mixture into the pot as a thickener. Add the already sauteed mushrooms to the stew and allow to simmer for about 10 minutes. Adjust seasonings, if necessary, and serve.

    2. We are far beyond transparency
      We are far beyond discussing what if.
      Reason would do better discussing possible scenarios of how this will fall apart and how best to prepare to remain in your house and safely retain your property.

      All this served to do what cement the status quo. The country is a banana republic past being saved.

      We are in for 20 more years of slow bleeding. Rule of law is not only dead, it has zero relevance if you are not as sworn ward of the state.

      Reason is doing a disservice at this point wondering what can be done to save the republic. The best thing to do is to start sharing ideas of how to operate the underground economy and how to make money under the state’s nose.

      1. Dissolution of the federal government is about the only viable fix at this point. The states have the power, but I doubt they have the will.

        1. They don’t have the will for the same reason that this lawyer did not indict the cunt. They all have over paid bureaucratic breeze jobs, certainly;y to include state employees.. Not one person either directly or indirectly dependent on largesse will dare upset the apple cart.

          That is what was intentionally engineered by the government growth over the last 25 years.

    3. I guess I am the only one that doesn’t give a shit about this email scandal. In fact, I am bored to tears with it. No people were hurt by Hillary’s email server. I am much more concerned about all the civilians killed under her watch or all the lives ruined by her policy decisions.

      1. I’m inclined to agree. I mean, I’m offended that she gets to walk for something a less-powerful person would get screwed for, but people are acting like this is the first time a well-connected person has ever gotten away with something because they were well-connected. People were less outraged about Obama drone-killing civilians than they are about this, somehow. If rule of law is “dead”, it was dead a long time ago. This is just same old, same old.

      2. I guess I am the only one that doesn’t give a shit about this email scandal.

        I am much more concerned about all the civilians killed under her watch or all the lives ruined by her policy decisions.

        You don’t think one has something to do with the other? I think the extent of the damage of an unsecured private email server is unknowable and wouldn’t be surprised at all if it cost lives both domestic and foreign.

        Also, while it would certainly be nice to convict Capone of the murders he committed, I’d rather he go to jail for the Tax Fraud he did commit than either him going free. Seeing that, now, she’ll probably walk no matter what the charges, I agree that the ones leveled against her should at least be the good ones.

        1. “You don’t think one has something to do with the other? I think the extent of the damage of an unsecured private email server is unknowable and wouldn’t be surprised at all if it cost lives both domestic and foreign.”

          No but for what will probably be a strange reason.

          I believe the government is thoroughly compromised in totality. Hillary’s server like opening a porthole on the Titanic.

          I seriously doubt there was anything on her server that wasn’t compromised two or three other ways already.

      3. No people were hurt by Hillary’s email server.

        Assumes facts not in evidence, on account of being wiped. You know, like with a cloth.

        We’ll never know how much damage Hillary did with her homebrew email, either directly (by influence peddling) or indirectly (by giving every competent intelligence service on the planet full access to all of the SecState’s email traffic).

  2. Looks like the GOP is going to call Comey in to testify

    I’d start by asking how “extreme carelessness” does not equal “gross negligence” when it’s pretty much in the textbook legal definition. Follow up by asking how intentionally setting up an unsecured server does not equal intent.

    1. My Prog friends seem pretty quiet and generally demoralized by all this. They wake up every day certain in the knowledge that they by being Progs are fighting against the idea that the laws don’t apply to the rich and powerful. They seem oddly dispondent about Hillary’s big win yesterday

      1. On Hate Radio this morning, the Progs were not at all quiet or demoralized. Victory lap and spiking the football. Many mentions of the Bush Email Scandal ™.

        1. Those are the ones who get paid to sing the party song. The rest of them seem pretty quiet.

          1. They don’t pay the callers. Ditto all the tards cluttering up my Facebook feed with exultant cries of vindication and delighted anticipation of a massive Hillary victor in November.

            1. Witting peons? There’s never a shortage of them.

            2. I am not sure the set of people who call into radio stations is much different than those who get paid to sing the party song. Maybe my Prog friends are the exception. I don’t know

            3. I haven’t seen a single one of those on Facebook. I have lefties on there, but they’re silent, or posting some anti-Hillary/pro-Bernie stuff.

              1. You have fewer tards than I do, apparently. Then again, I hang with artists and musicians by and large, and they tend to be a bit… well… you know.

                1. mad?

                  1. Compared with some of the people you and I know in common, they are the models of rationality and logic.

                2. …Hitler?

                3. …Hitler?

                  1. “Cake Hitler”

                    A terrible mid-season entry into the Food shows scrum…

                    1. I would so watch that.

                    2. Tag line:

                      “No cake for you!”

            4. They don’t pay the callers. Ditto all the tards cluttering up my Facebook feed

              I believe the term you’re looking for is “useful idiots.”

              1. Do you seriously believe they let any wackjob call into a radio program? No. They vetted them and their opinions, probably with a ten second tape lead to cut them out if they’re disruptive. They choose which opinions to put on the air, friend.

        2. Nah, my Facebook feed is dead silence from all my proggie law school buds. They are demoralized. Comey said meanie things….he was supposed to just pardon her, blame a right wing conspiracy, and Bush….but he said she lied.

          1. I was surprised to see how completely my Facebook is ignoring this.

            1. Wait a second, you guys are on Facebook?

              1. Yes, Paul. Sorry, we aren’t accepting new friends at this point in time. You can be on the waitlist, though.

                1. Speak for yourself.

              2. Wait a second, you guys are on Facebook?

                Where better to see prime derp and hilarious photos of Playa’s kids?

            2. Count me in too. Very, very quiet.

      2. Which is weird, because as far as I know progs don’t really have a problem with different rules for different classes of people.

        1. You must not know many of them because you clearly do not understand the depths of their rationalizations.

          1. I understand they rationalize different rules for different folks. That was kind of my point – they don’t have a problem with it, as evidenced by their rationalizations and defenses of it.

            1. No. They do have a problem with it. They rationalization their support for different rules so effectively they don’t think they are doing it. They think they support equal protection.

              1. Ah, yes. Never underestimate the lack of self-awareness of authoritarians who are trying to pretend to care about the little people.

    2. It will be interesting how he handles these questions, as his piece yesterday seemed to read as “I think we should prosecute her but I’ve been told to write the opposite.”

      1. It really, really seemed like that, didn’t it? As RC says below, it’s bizarre. I assume he’ll be under oath (whether or not that matters to him is another question) – I don’t expect him to come out and say “Yeah, I think she broke the law, but no way was she going to be prosecuted”, but I’m sort of expect there will be a lot of space between the lines that we can read into.

    3. The words extreme carelessness were specifically chosen to describe not crossing the line of gross negligence. And intent to do what?

      1. It is called strict liability Tony. There are dozens of people who have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information without any proof they intended to do any harm.

        Look Tony, the rich white woman got off where the poor person or the black person, rich or poor, would not have. And you think it is great because God damn it she is different than the numerous black politicians who have been sent to prison and never got a break. She is white and Democrat.

        1. Like you could even hope to have an ounce of credibility on this subject. What is your opinion of the Bush administration’s email scandal? Would you care to link me to all your posts crying about the privilege of the white and the powerful made during that time?

          1. Whataboutism for the win.

          2. The rich white woman got over. You know as well as I do if she had been black she would have been indicted. And you think it is great.

            It is what it is.

          3. Is that a “But Clinton!” defense, Tony?

          4. Tu quoque FTW!

      2. Gross negligence is a legal concept which means serious carelessness. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from the proverbial “reasonable person.”

        Emphasis mine.

        Intent to violate the law regarding the handling of classified material. Comey’s claim was that she didn’t intentionally violate the statute. But she intentionally created the circumstances that guaranteed the statute would be violated.

      3. Somehow I knew this would bring you out of the wood work.

        #It’sHerTurnDamnIt!

    4. I’m sure that’ll be productive.

  3. The more I think about it, the more bizarre this whole episode has been.

    Since when do cops (which is what Comey is) make decisions about whether to indict based on what they think a “reasonable prosecutor” would do? Isn’t there a whole building full of prosecutors to make exactly that decision? This never happens.

    Oh, but the chief prosecutor was compromised by meeting with the subject’s spouse. Something else that just never happens.

    And the subject of the investigation gives an interview, and less than a single business day later it is announced she won’t be prosecuted. Again, something that just doesn’t happen.

    You know what we haven’t seen? And what, oddly enough, nobody is even asking to see?

    The transcript of that interview. Where is that? What happened in the interview and why isn’t a single member of the press, as far as I know, asking for the transcript?

    1. Transcript is probably classified, and it’s a crime to email that to a journalist’s unsecured email account!

      1. Sure, sure, but why isn’t the press clamoring for it? Why isn’t a redacted version being prepared?

        Just another very odd thing about this whole episode.

        1. In all seriousness, perhaps some conservative group will file a FOIA request for it.

          1. And be put off 497 months – sue for it, take 2 years to get to the point a judge orders it produced and then….yawn.

            1. You haven’t been keeping up. If you file a FOIA now you get thrown in jail. Easypeasy.

      2. Well-played LynchPin.

      3. It went into the burn bag.

    2. Since never. The FBI does recommend no indictment. I think Comey knew Lynch was never going to indict her. So he beat her to the punch and had the press conference where he at least got to lay out the facts. Lynch would have never told the truth. Since he didn’t say indict, Hillary is stuck with his version of the facts.

      1. The FBI does recommend no indictment

        I’m sure they do, when they can’t prove up the crime.

        But that’s not why he recommended no indictment here. He did so because “no reasonable prosecutor would indict”. Which is a bizarre reason for a cop to recommend no indictment.

        1. Does not. We agree about that. My type o.

      2. I think I agree with you. I think Comey actually believes it would lead to worse conclusion and threaten people’s belief in the system if he recommended charges and they weren’t persued by justice. he knows that it didn’t matter what he said the fix was in and at least this way some retards(allbeit with partisan blinders) might still think rule of law exists as opposed to a situation where nobody would. that and he likes his job.

        1. I think he figured it might hurt her more politically. Had he recommended indictment, she would have looked like a martyr as Lynch stepped in and lied and to justify her decision not to do it. This way he put all the facts out there. He spent 20 minutes making the case that she is a criminal only to end with effectively saying “forget it Jake its Chinatown”. That makes her look like a crook who got over, which probably hurts her more than had he recommended indictment but Lynch not pursued it

          1. And he doesn’t become the first FBI director in history to remove a nominee for president from one of the two major parties from the ballot. Which is probably good. One of the things America does right is to not prosecute the people out of power after they leave. In this case, its a little weird because she’s coming back. However, I think on balance, you want to give power mad sociopaths as few justifications as possible for convincing themselves they simply can’t give up power.

            1. He basically said “politically I cannot indict her but for God’s sake America end this bitch’s career by refusing to elect her President”.

              1. Exactly.

            2. “One of the things America does right is to not prosecute the people out of power after they leave.”

              Except for McDonnell, or Perry, or Stevens, or DeLay, or Petraeus. The list is long.

              1. And all either Republicans or black. White Democrats are never prosecuted.

    3. It was rotten from the start. If you were subject to an FBI investigation, armed men would show up at your home and office and bag and tag all your electronics. They wouldn’t say – “Please Mr. Dean, send us all relevant materials, you know, when you get around to it, and then feel free to delete anything you think isn’t relevant”

      The fix was in from day 1.

    4. why isn’t a single member of the press, as far as I know, asking for the transcript?

      I think you know the answer to this.

    5. My impression – the bottom line was laid out for Comey. If he did recommend indictment, his career was effectively finished. And it would be finished for nothing. DOJ lawyers would decide otherwise and no case would be followed up on. Oh, and whatever happens to him, the FBI would also be a target. Now, James, you’ve got such a nice promising future ahead of you. Why would want to put all that in jeopardy?

      You want to go out there and lay out your case? Fine. Have at it. The public isn’t going to be paying that much attention. The only thing they’ll hear, or at least the only thing they’ll remember a few months from now, is “No indictment.”

      If he had an ounce of integrity, he’d have simply resigned.

      1. “If he did recommend indictment, his career was effectively finished.”

        Can’t anybody in that sewer lose his/her job, move to a different part of the country, and get another job like a normal person? Surely Comey has salted away bags of cash at this point.

        1. Can’t anybody in that sewer lose his/her job, move to a different part of the country, and get another job like a normal person?

          I think I get it. I don’t respect it. But, I think I get it.

          He’s on the inside. He’s one of “the important people”. Going from that to being a normal person is just not something his ego could handle contemplating.

  4. The conservative case for letting Clinton skate is that they want to be able to do the same thing when (if ever) they get back in power.

    1. That is a fools erred. The rules will always apply to Repiblicans.

      1. Not when repubs and dems are the exact same thing.

        The only hope is for the populace to largely disdain all politicians. It would require education and an occasional book to read. Since it is never going to happen, just arm your selves.

        If it were possible for the sheep to not look at pols as any sort of solution, perhaps the scum would lose their grip.

        Won’t happen as long as people think that the daily news feed matters. The pols have always been puppets with charisma. They have fooled dems and repubs alike.

        1. They will never be the exact same thing. The Republicans are the other team. The Democrats need someone to feel superior to and to prosecute for the wrong doing they justify in themselves.

          1. Close. Politics requires an enemy. Republican enemies tend to be foreign. Democrat enemies tend to be Republicans.

          2. I disagree. They are all friends behind the scenes. Im sure they go out and get drunk, buy hookers, and run out on the check together.

  5. The only benefit to seeing Clinton skate is that people’s contempt and disgust at the political classes is growing, which is entirely appropriate given how contemptible their behavior is.

    It’s a mask slipping. Fewer and fewer people are believing the lie that we live in a republic.

    Since people can only do the right thing if they have good information, the growing awareness of the lawlessness of the state prompted by Clinton’s evasion of jail is a good thing.

    1. People can react in different ways to a loss of faith in government. They can push for real accountability and reform. They can also just accept that corruption is par for the course and spend their energy making sure they and their favored groups are on the right side of it.

      I wish it weren’t true, but I don’t have much faith that the majority of Americans will choose the former option.

      1. Such Americans, as a group, are definitively a minority, and a relatively small one.

        1. That’s why the whole “burn it down” mentality, while viscerally satisfying, scares me. If you’re at the point that you need to burn it down, you probably aren’t going to like what comes next.

          1. 1) It burns down.

            2) It’s rebuilt according to the collective vision of the majority — a majority which invariably seeks authoritarianism.

            3) We’re fucked.

          2. Barbarians

          3. Agreed.

      2. There will be plenty of Viktor Komarovsky’s as we continue our descent.

  6. Can we move on to talking about how Hillary Clinton accepted tens of millions of dollars at a time from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State–according to Clinton Foundation and Department of State documents?

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..arms-deals

    And can we start talking more about how she’s still accepting money from foreign governments even while she’s running for President?

    Because that’s a much greater act of impropriety than anything Hillary has done with her email server–and, like I said, the taking of money from foreign governments while running for President is still ongoing.

    She’s still doing it!

    1. No smoking gun of a quid pro quo. Nobody cares.

      1. I appreciate the semi-irony and semi-sarcasm, but just for the record, according to that article I linked, there does appear to have been a quid pro quo.

        “In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

        http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

        That was a $29 billion sale of Boeing jet-fighters to Saudi Arabia that required Hillary Clinton’s approval as Secretary of State.

        According to the article, Hillary was bad-mouthing the Saudis and all the other countries that needed their weapons purchases approved by the State Department–right up until these donations were made.

        This should be in front of a jury.

        If it happened while she was President, she should be impeached for it.

        She’s a crook!

        1. To what end would the Sultan of Brunei contribute to the Clinton Foundation? What initiative that the foundation takes would the sultan be supportive of or even interested in? There is no logical reason for those donations other than political favors. It’s ridiculous on its face.

          1. Honest question: What does the Clinton Foundation even do? Or claim to do? How do they actually spend their money?

            1. They supposedly fund various charitable projects.

              And they employ Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea to run the foundation. Deciding which charities get funded by a foundation can be very lucrative work.

              Bill has hinted that he might step down if Hillary is elected President, but he’s not making any promises.

              I wonder if they file jointly.

              1. But is there at least a list of which charities they have donated to, and in what amount? How much actually goes into the pockets of the Clintons and their friends?

                1. If I recall correctly, some vast majority of the funds goes to “overhead” (salaries and travel for their cronies) and some tiny minority actually does go to charity, probably just to keep up appearances.

                  1. Wait, are we not regularly lectured about how non-profits which progs don’t like (anything Koch-funded as a prime example) is not a “real” charity?

            2. Oh, and there’s no saying what will happen to the Clinton Foundation and its funds once Hillary retires from politics.

          2. “To what end would the Sultan of Brunei contribute to the Clinton Foundation?”

            I originally thought the same thing about Australia. Why would Australia give to the Clinton Foundation?

            Then I found out they’ve been trying to buy American nuclear submarines to counter both aggression by China and any problems they might have with Indonesia.

            I’m not saying that getting defense contracts approved was the only reason a foreign government might give to Hilary while she was the Secretary of State. What I said was that the Secretary of State accepting money from foreign governments is unacceptable for any reason whatsoever–or no reason at all.

            That being said, she was in a position to disperse all sorts of favors–either now or in the future–and she’ll be in an greater position to grant favors if and when she becomes President.

            Why pretend otherwise?

        2. I know Terry McCauliffe is under investigation but has anyone said the Foundation as a whole is?

          1. I don’t see why there needs to be an investigation.

            The information is out there in the open for everyone to see. Hillary is hiding in plain sight.

            The information Mother Jones published was already publicly available. It’s in both the State Department documents and the Clinton Foundation documents.

            The Obama Administration made Hillary sign an ethics agreement in regards to the Clinton Foundation and how donations would be handled. The Clinton Foundation has already publicly admitted that they violated that agreement.

            In other words, all the damning evidence is already out in the open. I think that’s one of the reasons people don’t pay much attention to it. It’s like a cognitive bias or something. If you do something in secret, everybody wants to know about it and assumes it must have been untoward–because it was done in secret. Apparently, Hillary Clinton could rob a bank in broad daylight and no one would care–so long as she announced that she was going to rob it on television ahead of time.

            I suppose she felt compelled to keep accepting donations from foreign governments while running for President because if she stopped, people might interpret that to mean what she was doing before, when she was Secretary of State, was wrong. That’s the way the Clinton machine operates, you know.

            1. It’s like religion, people have been had so badly for so long that admitting they were wrong will be almost impossible.

        3. The proggies won’t be satisfied unless Hillary explicitly calls it a bribe in her communications. Anything else is just meanie rightwing speculation and conspiracy theories

        4. In these degraded times, it takes a smoking gun. Circumstantial evidence like that just doesn’t penetrate the thick skulls of most Americans.

          IOW, you would need, correspondence or recordings of Hillary telling the Sultan in short simple words “Give me millions of dollars or I will block the sale.” Absent that, its all FAIK SCANDUL!

          1. Hillary’s unfavorable rating is still higher than her favorable rating.

            From June 20- July 3 of 2016, Hillary’s unfavorable rating stands at 55%, and her favorable rating is still at only 40%.

            http://tinyurl.com/7hazzde

            All that unfavorable must have something to do with the perception that she’s a crook.

            I think it matters.

            1. Does it matter? What are Trumps unfavorable ratings again? It’s amazing that two candidates that apparently everyone hates have managed to secure both spots.

              It’s almost like whoever is counting the votes is doing it wrong.

      2. The gun could be smoking and her minions pissing on the barrel to cool it down from red hot and the press would still say “no, nothing”.

    2. No Len. She was just careless. Careless is when you lose your blackberry. How do you carelessly set up your own server?

      Anyway she did. She didn’t go to all that trouble because she had something to hide. Never.

      1. She was just trying to hide her yoga schedule from clingers like you! Everyone knows you want to see HRC in yoga pants.

        1. Barf.

          1. Imagine her cackling when a greazy fart erupts from her Standing Forward Bend pose and th—- *BARF!!*

    3. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I fear that so much energy and political capital was spent going after her for the email server that the she’ll be able to easily sweep the Clinton Foundation stuff under the rug. But maybe I’ll be surprised and it will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

      1. Won’t happen, people are numb to it.

    4. Well, “we” can certainly talk about it… but no one else will.

      1. Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur.

    5. She’s still doing it!

      “Bush was worse!”

      Seriously, it just plain doesn’t matter to her supporters.

  7. The actual substantive issue at the heart of this is overclassification. There are only a few commentators on the planet talking about that instead of politics, though, whether they’re defending Clinton or joining the lynch mob. The only thing anyone really cares about is the damage done or not done to her political campaign. That’s been the case since the very origins of all this in the utterly tasteless Benghazi witch hunt. And it is obvious in the post-nonindictment butthurt, despite the fact that every knowledgeable person predicted just this outcome.

    1. People, don’t feed the troll/sock.

      1. Good point. He/she/xe probably gets a bigger check from Media Matters if we reply.

      2. But but but that’s the most astounding feat of goalpost-moving EVER!

        1. Do you disagree that most people’s primary concern is political in nature? Nobody is indicating a single genuine rat’s ass given about any national security concerns.

          1. Actually, most people seem concerned with the blatant double standard that exists for the powerful and well connected – the type of thing progressives are supposed to hate, too.

            And if you’ve got a link to the 100+ classified emails so that we can decide for ourselves if there was a legitimate threat to national security, please, pass it along.

            1. There may be a double standard but this wasn’t an instance of it. If you’re claiming that it is, you are doing just what I said: joining the political lynch mob. People really really wanted Clinton to be indicted, despite the fact that no reasonable assessor of the facts thought it would happen. And they wanted it because they don’t like her politics.
              Talk about a banana republic. People didn’t get their way through democratic means so they want their opponents thrown in cages. And I’m mostly talking about Bernie supporters here. The Trump teabaggers of course will not even pretend it’s about anything else but nabbing the she-devil.

              1. Why did so many people think it wouldn’t happen?

                1. Lack of evidence of any illegality.

                  1. Holy crap you must be the stupidest man alive.

              2. Tony|7.6.16 @ 11:43AM|#
                “There may be a double standard but this wasn’t an instance of it.”

                There is a double standard and this is it. Even a slimy lefty like you would be in the slammer if you had done anything close to what she did.

                1. Even a slimy lefty like you would be in the slammer

                  HEY!

              3. I didn’t think she would be indicted, either, but not because there was no legal case.

                And there absolutely is a double standard since, as has been pointed out elsewhere, people who have committed very, very similar violations end up in jail.

                Oh, and a constitution and written law are attempts, naive though they may be, to create impartial actors so that these types of things are not left up to the whims of a democratic vote. It’s not supposed to matter whether you are popular or not. That’s part of the whole “no double standard” thing.

                1. The other cases people are pointing to are not equivalent. And Bush-appointee Republican James Comey is the poster boy for nonpartisan ethical uprightness. Any claim of shenanigans must imply that he’s part of the conspiracy.

                  1. Bush-appointee

                    What stupid bullshit. Comey was appointed as Director of the FBI in 2013. That’s during Obama’s second term. He’s a bipartisan hack and as much an Obama-appointee as a Bush-appointee.

          2. Man, that is awesome how you can read the mind of every person in the country and know what their actual (vs. professed) concerns are. That is a really cool superpower to have.

          3. Tony|7.6.16 @ 11:31AM|#
            “Do you disagree that most people’s primary concern is political in nature?”

            You’re the only one so far who has even mentioned the political aspects, so I’d say, along with being a moral cripple, you’re also projecting.

            1. But I could have predicted with 100% certainty that you were not going to accept a nonindictment at face value, no matter the messenger, no matter the facts.

              1. Tony|7.6.16 @ 11:55AM|#
                “But I could have predicted with 100% certainty that you were not going to accept a nonindictment at face value, no matter the messenger, no matter the facts.”

                And in fact, I reject it because of the facts, and I’d expect you being the ‘messenger’ to lie and distort them, attempt misdirection and generally prove once more your standfing as a moral cripple.
                You are nothing if not predictable.

                1. You have better facts than the FBI?

                  1. I suppose you think that the government tells the truth? You are an interestingly gullible zombie.

              2. Leave Hillary alone!!!

                /Tony

        2. He’s like one of those desperate Internet opinion-swaying government agents that infiltrate anti-government debates and post pro-government propaganda in the guise of ordinary citizens. He really, really wants us to stop hating on Clinton, because she’s such a swell gal.

          1. It is amazing isn’t it? He never deviates from the party line. You would think he would have become a Bernie Bro or something. But nope, Tony is always about the party.

          2. It’s actually kind of sad, going through life a morally bankrupt individual.

      3. You got to admit, trying to spin Clinton as a victim of overclassification is bold, even for a troll like Tony.

  8. It all *should* come down to one thing where individualism and voting are concerned. ‘How would I be treated if I did what she did?’

    I think, reasonably, we know what that may be and one *should* proceed accordingly.

    1. She’s a proven traitor, and a degenerate in every one of her aspects as an individual and a politician. The only righteous penalty for her transgressions is execution for treason.

      1. I’d be content with LWOP, personally.

        1. Hell, I’d be happy if she got two years probation like Petraeus. Just anything that finally acknowledges that she broke the law. That at least ONE time a Clinton didn’t get away with breaking the law and lying about it.

  9. Conservatives have an interest in diminishing state secrecy, not empowering it.

    Ah, Mr. Lake, you beautiful poor naive deluded and stupid bastard.

  10. Even if you think that what she did was no big deal and that she is being treated unfairly, you should still be pretty pissed about how Clinton and the DOJ approached the whole thing. They obfuscated and made excuses at every turn, which threw plenty of fuel on the fire for anyone who wanted to believe she was guilty and that there was some conspiracy to get her off the hook. And now that is walking, it only erodes conservative’s faith in the rule of law and government. Progressives may not care about that but they should – I don’t think they’ll like what the country looks like when no one respects government. You wonder why tax avoidance, black market dealings, and corruption were/are so common in Greece? Well there’s your answer.

    1. She destroyed evidence. That is a crime in of itself and one no peon would ever be allowed to skate on.

      1. Exactly. And she did it flagrantly.

    2. Exactly. If they’re okay with Hillary’s shenanigans and breathtaking arrogance then don’t be surprised at the banana republic behavior that follows.

      1. For the left (or any power hungry maniac) that’s a feature, not a bug. All they care about is getting at the levers of power; getting through the debris and blood to get there is just part of the journey.

        Hell – look at Stalin or Hitler – and the damage they did to their country.

    3. She also lied about the entire thing from day one. Everything she has said about the issue has later turned out to be completely false.

  11. William Binney, Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, or Edward Snowden

    Not for nothing, but one of these things is not like the other.

    Chelsea Manning was no whistle blower. PFC Manning indiscriminately dumped un-vetted intelligence onto wikileaks with no rhyme or reason. She deserves to be in prison and deserves no mention with those other names.

    1. What the hell is he doing?

      1. Kissing her ass to appeal to all the small govt Democrats. A winning strategy of you’re retarded.

        1. A winning strategy [if] you’re retarded.

          (claps hands, drools, rolls on floor)

      2. I should have followed Nick Gillespie’s example and said Libertarians Defend Hillary.

      3. Throwing the election I think.

    2. Weld calls Hillary a “really great kid”.

      To be fair, he didn’t say she was a great *adult.*

    3. Yet another reason to sit out the election

      1. Anecdotal as this may be as proof of how many people are sitting this one out, all three constitutionalists and libertarians I’m acquainted with in real life have gone down the outright, no-compromise “fuck all of this absolute horseshit, and may they all burn in Hell together” route.

    4. FFS. What is someone like him thinking?

    5. Oh, Jesus F. Christ.

    6. So much for Johnson being the “honorable choice”. Either you believe in the rule of law or you don’t. If you do, then you can’t vote for anyone who thinks this is okay. So that leaves Trump or probably Stein.

      1. Or Vermin Supreme. A boot on every head and a pony in every garage!

        1. Given a choice, I would take Sanders over Hillary in a real life case of “say what you want about national socialism but at least it is an ethos”. Hillary has no ideology or belief in anything but personal power.

    7. Fuck the LP. What’s the point of a protest vote when your protest candidate is just as shit as a typical major party candidate?

  12. Maybe there’s a conservative case for granting amnesty to everyone who violated security protocols without actually harming the United States.

    Of course, Hillary may not benefit from such an amnesty, given the possibility of hacking.

    Snowden, on the other hand, since he did the country a favor, rather than harm it, should certainly be covered by such an amnesty.

    Is that what Lake is saying?

    1. Snowden, on the other hand, since he did the country a favor, rather than harm it, should certainly be covered by such an amnesty.

      He should be given a fucking medal and a ticker tape parade.

      1. If there was any justice left in this country, Snowden would never pay for a meal or a drink again.

      2. Do they still use ticker tape?

        1. depends if it’s necessary to distract from the snipers?

    2. Snowden, on the other hand, since he did the country a favor, rather than harm it, should certainly be covered by such an amnesty.

      Is that what Lake is saying?

      Maybe. As with Clinton, Comey’s statements, even if made to that effect, would be a tail aspiring to wag a dog.

      Comey could say flat out the FBI would conduct no investigations on Snowden (or file charges) ever and would, subsequently, be forced to investigate his mysterious death upon repatriation. Snowden’s opponents have routinely and rather genuinely wished him a happy, healthy, and very short extrajudicial life.

  13. In an astounding leap of intellect, DU comes up with:

    Let’s face it Comey is a partisan hack

    What Comey did yesterday was a vicious partisan attacl. The FBI is one of the few unsullied by the right wing offices left in the country. This unprecedented attack He made no such pronouncements over the lost and deleted Bush email that contained real evidence of criminal behavior. He has no case. And he knows they would be left laughed out of court. So he chose to disgrace himself and his office by being the lead on a vicious partisan attack.

    1. I’m not saying that Chelsea will be caught running a heroin ring in 20 years, but if by any chance that *did* happen, progs will instinctively say, “what about Bush?”

    2. From one of the comments.

      It’s not really that much of a story anymore, surprisingly. I had to scroll way down the page at the Huffington Post in order to find the story from yesterday! Donald Trump’s comments about Saddam Hussein and the endless tale of his Twitter feed have already superseded the email story. Sure, Republicans will use his quotes in some attack ads but they’ll be ineffective since no charges will be filed.

      But Bush! Trump!

    3. Here is how I read that. Everything those people say is a lie. So, if they are saying Comey is a hack who can’t be trusted, what he said must both be true and hurting them.

  14. Apparently Nick hasn’t been listening to the vast number of conservatives who are outraged at this for what it is.

    1. Not getting a politician they deeply dislike thrown in a cage?

      1. No, Tony, letting a felon skate. Try to keep up.

      2. Yes Tony, let the rich white person off. Give whitey a break for once.

  15. It’s funny how someone could actually think that “overclassification” is the elephant in the livingroom, when Freedom of Information Act requests is the Elephant in the livingroom. How fucking retarded do you have to be to ignore the fact that Clinton, by her own words, attempted to shield her work as Sec. of State from FOIA requests.

    I know the whole FOIA request things kinda came from the left, Nixon and the Pentagon Papers, but hey, them’s was previous times, we’s in new times now.

    1. I mean, Jesus, think about it. The Secretary of Fucking State purposely hid her public work from the public which has a right to it, and we think that this is still about whether this or that document was “classified”. Frankly, it wouldn’t matter if it had turned out that nothing she had sent was classified, she purposely shielded The People’s Fucking Business from The People– essentially exempting herself from the very open-records laws that govern every public employee.

      1. The Clintons are masters at changing the subject.

    2. Yeah, I’m wondering how many FOIA requests her office fraudulently signed off on during that four year stretch. It must be in the thousands.

  16. What is this Bush email shit?

    I was on the road last week and missed the latest Dem talking points.

    1. Summary: Bush did it too.

      Logical summary: Some guy used to own slaves too, so…

      1. And if Lincoln had a computer, he would have also,

    2. He lied and kids died! Why do you hate children?

    3. The fact that you don’t even know about it says a lot about your motivations.

      Bush administration used private internet domain for emails and in the end “lost” 22 million of them, with Hatch Act and Presidential Records Act implications. This came to light during the Wilson affair. When Dick Cheney outed a CIA officer for her husband’s writing an article disproving the administration’s claim that Iraq had WMD resulting in thousands of American deaths and untold thousands of Iraqi deaths for no reason.

      No big thing.

      1. OM Jippers he had a private email!

        1. I’m told it’s no big deal.

          (am I doing it right?)

      2. The Bush Administration isn’t a person. Be more specific.

      3. This is the one where the Bush administration, in an effort to comply with the Hatch Act, had the Republican National Committee set up a domain for it to use for political, rather than governance, activities? Because the Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources for political activities?

        That one?

        1. No, when the Bush administration in an effort to hide its illegal activities used a private RNC server to communicate about them, then conveniently lost the emails.

          That was not the real scandal of course–the real scandal is the massively costly war based on lies nobody got prosecuted for.

          1. Tony|7.6.16 @ 12:00PM|#
            “No, when the Bush administration in an effort to hide its illegal activities used a private RNC server to communicate about them, then conveniently lost the emails.”
            Details? Who needs details? Tony says it happened.

            “That was not the real scandal of course–the real scandal is the massively costly war based on lies nobody got prosecuted for.”
            You’re right. Obo should be hauled before the courts. H

            1. If you’d own up to your partisanship I’d respect you a whole lot more.

              1. As for me, your respect has a negative value.

      4. “Bush administration used private internet domain for emails and in the end “lost” 22 million of them, with Hatch Act and Presidential Records Act implications.”

        One more imbecile who equates “email” with “server”; ’nuff said.

        1. Weren’t those emails recovered, anyway?

        2. One more imbecile who equates “email” with “server”; ’nuff said.

          Not only that but considers “But, they did it too!” as some sort of legitimate legal defense. Not only am I pretty certain that lots of libertarians aren’t too averse to Bush going to jail for any/all crimes committed, but I’m also certain anybody except the most partisan hack could see that enforcing/honoring the “But, they did it too!” defense *now* would hardly be any better than just randomly convicting people of using and/or losing emails.

      5. ZOMG YOURE RIGH!!! You toats just outed Playa as a secret TEATHUGLIKKAN!!! He just pretends to be a libertarian because he hates that a black man is in the White House, and the thought of a woman president is almost as bad to him!!!

        I knew it!

      6. Oh good, it’s no big thing. I was worried for a moment that the fall of the Republic has already happened in my lifetime. Nope, the constitution, rule of law, and all that are good. Whew.

        1. This whole two wrongs making a right argument is tiresome isn’t it?

          1. That and the endless false equivalence. You see Condi Rice once did some official work on her yahoo email account. And that is totally the same thing and none of you racists had an issue with it.

      7. So, in your effort to paint commenters as hypocrites, you are saying what Hilary did is ok because of what Bush did? You want to think this through a bit more and come back?

        1. You want to think this through a bit more and come back?

          ask-too-much much? and the invitation to come back, cmon, wtf.

          1. I like to imagine it’s a sentient being. Let me have my illusions

    4. Let me put it this way, Playa, Bush is no longer a criminal for this affair in the eyes of Dems, and any attempt to paint him as that was all just partisan bullshit. Who knew Bush’s activities would be fully rehabilitated a mere eight years after an Obama presidency? Is there nothing Obama can’t do?

  17. Just to add some international flavor to our wake for the rule of law:

    An indigenous woman in Calgary, Canada who yelled “I hate white people” before punching a white woman in the face and knocking her tooth out did not commit a racially motivate hate crime, a provincial court judge has ruled.

    http://heatst.com/culture-wars…..ate-crime/

    1. Thoughtcrimes only work one way.

    2. It is impossible for a white person to be the victim of a hate crime. Impossible. Anywhere. Get used to it.

    3. The punchline is that the victim was black?

      1. the victim, Lydia White

        L. O. Fucking L.

  18. Is There a “Conservative Case For Letting Clinton Skate”?
    No

    That’s an odd conclusion (sans any consideration)

    The traditional definition of ‘Conservative’ tends to emphasize “respect and reverence for established institutions” and an unwillingness to undermine them in the face of short-term considerations. Like in GoT; more concerned with ‘protecting the realm’ than who might currently have the crown.

    The greatest problem with investigating Clinton was always “what if she *is* indicted?”… esp. after she won the primary?

    I don’t believe there’s ever been any comparable situation in history where a leading political figure for the currently ruling-party is being tried for crimes while running for high-office.

    It would throw the entire political process on its head. The Dems would be deprived their candidate by ‘process’; there would be a perception of manipulation and unfairness on both sides. The uncertainty around the situation would remain through the election itself, casting an impression of illegitimacy on the result.

    In short, our systems of justice and of political representation would be seen as hopelessly compromised.

    This is exactly the sort of thing “Conservatives” have traditionally feared; loss of faith in institutions. Even if it means letting a criminal slide, you should always protect the system itself.

    I’d think this would be the obvious first thought in answer to that headline.

    1. In short, our systems of justice and of political representation would be seen as hopelessly compromised.

      Didn’t we get that anyway?

      Our problem here is that our established institutions drifted into a position of irreparable conflict. You could either defend the rule of law and justice system, or the political/democratic system, but not both.

      1. We totally got that anyway. The system failed when Hillary won the nomination. Not indicting her doesn’t fix that.

      2. Didn’t we get that anyway?

        I think there was ALWAYS going to be ‘some damage done’

        It was implicit in the very idea of what Clinton did; and its the big reason why WHAT she did was all the worse for its pettyness; she flaunted any notion of oversight while holding high office.

        So an investigation was inevitable from the conservative ‘institution-defending’ position. You have to show people, no matter how powerful, that there are risks/costs to undermining the system.

        Was the threat *always* toothless? I don’t know. (*i personally thought that they’d go after one of her subordinates, a la Mills or Huma, simply to justify their whole investigation)

        But when you consider the range of options, an investigation which results in censure but no indictment was probably the only possible outcome

        You could either defend the rule of law and justice system, or the political/democratic system, but not both.

        I entirely agree. That’s the root of the problem. And it is only resolved in ways that do not satisfy either entirely. a “half measure” result was likely inevitable.

        But i think on the question of “is there a conservative case for letting Hillary slide” – i think trying to at least *preserve both* (despite both being damaged in the process) is a conservative priority.

        A trial of Hillary herself was never going to happen, IMO.

        1. A trial of Hillary herself was never going to happen, IMO

          On this we can agree.

    2. It would throw the entire political process on its head. The Dems would be deprived their candidate by ‘process’;

      Bernie Sanders would merely step out of the bullpen.

      1. Joe Biden. If I am a Democrat, I am not sure I wouldn’t be mad at Comey and Lynch for not indicting her. Had they indicted her, the Convention could have kicked her to the side and nominated Biden or Kerry, both of which would be much stronger candidates than Hillary. Thanks to them not indicting Hillary, the Democrats not only look like insider crooks, they are stuck with Hillary as their candidate.

        1. Yeah John, not indicting Hillary isn’t the thing that makes Dems look like insider crooks.

          1. Really? I think it does in a very public and undeniable way. Some things are so obvious that even the hacks can’t pretend otherwise such that the typical low information voter will just write it off as another partisan fight. I would rather she have been indicted, but this is not a good thing for Hillary by any stretch of the imagination.

            1. All I’m saying John is that it’s the insider-crookedness of the Dems that makes them look like insider crooks.

              1. And a lot of people don’t realize that. They honestly think the Democrats are the party of the little guy. There is the whole myth leftover from Roosevelt that says the Democrats are the party of the common man. A lot of people still believe that. And I don’t mean just partisans. That myth took a big hit yesterday.

  19. So has Lake founded “Conservatives for Snowden” yet?

  20. Of course there’s a conservative case for letting Clinton skate. Hell, just listen to whatever David Brooks says about it if you want a standard communitarian-conservative take. Sure, any argument about trust in institutions can be made against letting Clinton skate, but both arguments would qualify as conservative.

    1. Or, pretty much what Gilmore said.

      1. You have to pick which national institution to sacrifice.

        Personally, I wouldn’t have picked the rule of law.

        1. The rule of law is the very thing tearing the nation apart. If you prosecute one public official, you’d have to prosecute them all.

          1. You raise a good point. I would love to see Trump win and go after Holder and Lynch and Hillary and the whole fucking gang for their various crimes. They are all guilty as hell of perjury and lying to Congress at the very least. The problem with that is that Democrats would not see that as the rule of law. They would see that as an excuse to jail people over political differences and then proceed to go after Republicans when they got into office. That wouldn’t bother me except the Democrats would not worry about said Republicans actually being guilty of a crime. And that would be a very bad thing.

        2. If “rule of law” is an institution (in the way political parties, the electoral college, the executive branch, etc. are), it’s a very vague and contentious one. It’s much, much easier to twist an argument to say that “rule of law” is intact or only bruised, than it would be to deny the harm done to the electoral process and the “legitimacy” of the next POTUS.

          As I said, a conservative could make an argument for either side. But it’s not hard to see what the conservative case would be to shield Clinton.

          1. I get it. There’s a reason why ex-rulers are almost never prosecuted for their manifest crimes – it is generally accepted that its better to let the murdering scum ride off into the sunset, rather than give them a reason to hang on until they are dragged out past piles of corpses.

            1. Not just that. It sets precedent for when the new rulers also have to ride off into the sunset.

              Professional courtesy, one might say.

              1. Not just that. It sets precedent for when the new rulers also have to ride off into the sunset.

                Yes.

                It is implicit in the politics of leadership that when new parties take power, if they go on a witch-hunt of the opposition as soon as they do, it undermines the office itself.

                Because it only incentivizes every party to go on a scorched-earth campaign every time they take power.

                Granting ‘immunity’ to the prior admins is just best-practice because it means you yourself can rule without fear that whatever transpires might later be treated as criminal (*whether it is or not)

                The “court of public-opinion”, in theory, is supposed to compensate for this. In the case of Hillary, we don’t see that happening.

    2. I despise Brooks. If Hitler came back to life, got elected President of the US and started using Jews for firewood, Brooks’ only lament would be that it erodes faith in government institutions.

      1. I feel like he’s the kind of guy who would have written columns like: “Say what you like about Pol Pots’ methods, you have to respect and admire the idealism behind them.”

        1. .. and the crease in his pants.

  21. As for Lake’s argument… what the fuck? None of it makes sense. Hosting an unauthorized, unsecured server is not somehow furthering transparency and dealing a blow against state secrets. Fuck, it’s pretty clear that she did it in large part to avoid transparency, trying to get around FOIA.

    But it’s not too bad, because we’d be able to hack President Clinton’s unnecessarily-classified documents? OK, Eli…

    1. And don’t forget the destruction of evidence and the withholding of documents from DOS. Nothing says transparency like destruction of evidence.

  22. Haven’t heard anything from Reason. Yet every post straffinrun has made has been scrubbed from this site. I’ve never threatened anyone, made racist, homophobic comments. I just want an answer.

    1. So what didja do?

    2. Yeah, I do too, now. I don’t recall straffinrun’s ouvre as being particularly unusual, much less worthy of an Orwellian memory-holing.

      What gives, Reason?

    3. Double-secret probation?

      Seriously, disappointed for you.

    4. No shit? I can’t see any reason why they would do that. Wow.

    5. This has Preet’s fingerprints all over it.

      1. Who is Preet?

        1. The DA who subpoena’d reason’s comments log and user database.

          1. Ah. Thank you

          2. Bharara boom dee ay! Did you get yours today? I got mine yesterday! That’s why I walk this way!

          3. Wow, that is one fawning Wikipedia entry. Did someone write it himself?

      2. Great. I got a family and the last thing I want is that. I quit. Let it go guys.

        1. But you didn’t do anything, right?

          What was the last post you made before you got banned?

    6. I’ve never threatened anyone, made racist, homophobic comments

      Wait, those things are a no-no?

      1. Back in the day the only real no-no was spoofing a staffer.

        1. Oh no, more than that. Cavanaugh banned & scrubbed me for comments about the ongoing (at that time, 2006) Israel-Lebanon war. Comments which, I should add, turned out to be accurate. His wife is apparently Lebanese and anything suggesting that it’s stupid to allow your village to be turned into a missile site (or being surprised when it gets bombed after launching missiles) enraged him.

      2. I thought those things were SOP.

      3. Shit, if those are taboo, a lot of y’all are in trouble.

    7. Trespassing, spamming or any other malicious technical type thing?

    8. Did you maintain your own private server while posting comments to Reason?

      1. Yes and the IP Address is “bringbackLucy.com”

      2. Are you secretly Hillary?

    9. Not again. I’m sorry to hear that for your and everyone else’s sake.

  23. I’ll go with Lincoln on this one: “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”

  24. http://www.pinterest.com/kosmopolitis…..liticians/

    Here is a pininterest site of various black politicians who went to prison for corruption. Amazingly, the FBI and DOJ did not decide to cut them a break. I think Hillary might be benefiting from white privilege.

    1. As long as she writes a long, essay-length editorial in a major daily acknowledging her white privilege, all is forgiven.

      1. I highly encourage you to shove that page in every Prog’s face you can find. It is high comedy.

      2. She should also commit to hiring more people of color and requiring social justice indoctrination sensitivity training.

    2. Here is a pininterest site of various black politicians who went to prison for corruption.

      I’m guessing they’re all well-dressed.

    3. 5 examples? no marion berry? no kwame kilpatrick? no chuck rangel?

      1. I didn’t say it was complete. I can’t think of a single black politician no matter how liberal who ever got off easy. Can you?

        1. Only the one’s who haven’t been caught yet.

          1. Charlie Rangel springs to mind…

  25. maybe someone touched in here; with 250 comments, it’s likely but lost in the Comey presser was the part where he said it’s quite likely that hostile nations have the Clinton email dossier. I’m sure that none of those nations’ leaders, or those of our allies, will use any of that material to advance their agendas, to negotiate favorable terms on whatever. She’s not just a a liar and an incompetent, she actually IS a national security threat.

    1. We are at the point that there is a decent possibility that the Russians or the Chinese intelligence services will effectively pick our next President.

      I think it is likely that Hillary had very incriminating material on that server relating to her bribery scheme with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State and that either or both the Chinese and Russian intelligence service has that information. So, if they want Hillary as President, they hold onto it and try to use it against her when she is President. Or if they think Trump winning is more in their interests, they leak it.

      Isn’t that great?

      1. That would be the mother of all October Surprises.

        1. The only thing about not releasing it is that I am not sure it would have much effect after the bitch wins. She and her media zombies would just say “everyone knew that and it is just old news”. I think it only works as blackmail material before the election or at least works best.

          Given that, I wonder what kinds of things Obama is giving them right now to keep them from leaking it before November.

          1. I’m still not convinced that she’s safe. It’s a little tinfoil hattish, and unlikely, but slightly possible that AFTER the convention, when HRC is the official candidate a whole bunch of stuff gets leaked that destroys her. Then Uncle Joe steps into the gap.

            1. I am not sure how the elections work. I am not sure when you can switch out candidates on the ballots. I can’t imagine it is much after September but who knows.

              1. No, but you can put your real pick as VP and then force her to commit openly to resign after her election. Bonus points for hilarity if she welshes.

                1. They just ignored the election rules in New Jersey when Torticelli was indicted. I am not even sure Frank Lautenberg was still alive much less a legally on the ballot. But that didn’t stop them.

                  1. Yep, and they would do the same thing nationally if need be. This time they would have the added “bonus” that Hillary was destroyed by the sexist Republicans.

              2. Doesn’t matter. It just has to be publicly known that the electors are going to vote for X.

  26. Here’s the problem for Democrats: They’d really like to be able to dump Hillary, but now they may be too boxed. There are probably candidates they could nominate for prez who’d have incomparably lower negatives than Hillary, & easily as high or higher positives. Comey has convicted her in all but law. If there were any voters left on the fence about her, they’ve fallen onto the anti side now.

    The problem’s the Bernie delegates. They were elected mostly by people voting anti-Hillary, but the delegates themselves are probably mostly activist true believers in Bernie (unlike the Trump delegates who were assigned as bound to Trump). But if there’s anyone who might do worse than a crook-&-traitor, it’s an avowed socialist. So they can’t nominate Bernie, but whoever else they nominate, the revolt in their ranks of activists will be substantial. If they could somehow get past the convention & then yank Hillary, they’d be in better shape, because there won’t be a lot of Bernie support on their national committee, and the voters will breathe a sigh of relief. But now they can’t, because Comey picked the worst possible time for the anmt.

    Hillary can’t get elected dog catcher now. She can get appointments up the wazoo because of the dirt she has on everybody, but voters aren’t interested. She’ll carry states in Nov. just on anti-Republican voters, but if she tried to run anywhere in the country, like NY again, for whatever, Mickey Mouse would beat her in the primary.

    1. Hillary and Obama fucked the Democrats and good. Obama by being such an out of touch jackass who kept telling the country to go fuck themselves, destroyed the up and coming generation of Democratic politicians. Then Hillary bribed, blackmailed or did God knows what to keep Warren, Kerry and Biden from running. So they were left with Hillary and Bernie. Even if they could kick Hillary to the curb at the convention for someone like Biden, they would still be screwed because the Bernie supporters would never buy it. And without them, no Democrat can win.

      Even if they find some way to drag her wrinkly ass over the line in November, they still won’t control the Congress and she will be the most disliked and weakest President in history. Hillary winning would be a Pyrrhic victory in many ways.

      1. they still won’t control the Congress

        That is very uncertain.

        1. They might get a small minority in the Senate but even the democrats admit they have no chance at the House. Think of it this way, Hillary would be the weakest candidate ever to win the office. Good candidates are lucky to have coattails. What makes anyone think Hillary would? If it looks like she is going to win, it will likely kill the Democrats in Congress as the country ticket splits to make sure she has some adult supervision.

      2. Bernie doesn’t have a significant number of supporters. He does, however, have a number of delegates to the convention who are supporters who were elected on anti-Hillary votes. A competitive Democrat could win the election w/o the Bernie supporters, but could not get the party’s nomination at the convention because of his delegates. And now there’s probably not going to be any excuse to yank her after the convention, Eagleton style.

  27. This is from an article on a different subject, but still applicable here as we watch otherwise reasonable people decide the rule of law is just no big deal. As it often is when talking about evil, it’s Solzhenitsyn for the win.

    Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble?and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology?that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes. . . . That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

  28. The realpolitik Republican case in favor of what happened is simple. Hillary is a terrible and damaged candidate, now even more damaged. If she was dropped by the Democrats and they nominated anyone else (Biden, O’Malley, Sanders, etc…) they would have a much better shot of winning the election.

    Now Trump gets to use her as a punching bag for the next 4 months.

    1. The other thing this does it cut the legs out from under the NeverTrump crowd. Now it is no longer about who is President. It is about the rule of law. I would love to hear what George Will has to say today. Does he still think four years of Hillary is just no big deal?

      1. It’s not as if she’d ignore the rule of law for *other* people, just for herself.

  29. How did a person get the classified information or email off of a classified system to email it to Hillary’s unclassified personal email server? Classified emails can not be emailed to an unclassified system. Did someone use a thumbdrive? Burn a dvd? Retype a classified email onto an unclassified email? A crime was committed. One you and I would burn for and one that others recently have burned for. Whatever about secrecy, I would like to see whatever the laws are applied equally to all. Change the laws if they stink. Create more transparency (would love that). But apply the laws equally.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.