Hillary Clinton

It's Official: No Charges for Hillary Clinton over Email Scandal

A.G. Loretta Lynch accepts FBI recommendation.

|

Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the Justice Department was accepting the FBI's recommendations and will not be charging Hillary Clinton with any crimes over her use of private servers to store emails (some classified) she received and sent as secretary of state.

From USA Today:

Lynch had previously said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI and prosecutors in the case and she reiterated that in a brief Wednesday statement.

"Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State," she said. "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation."

The attorney general sparked controversy last week after it was revealed that she'd met briefly with Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, when the two crossed paths while traveling at the Phoenix airport. Although she maintained they hadn't discussed the case and had mainly talked about personal matters, she said on Friday that she "certainly wouldn't do this again" and made clear she would accept whatever decision Comey and the team conducting the investigation arrived at.

This morning Jacob Sullum evaluated whether Clinton's carelessness could seriously be treated as felony gross negligence. Yesterday I noted how the Department of Justice on the Obama administration had not shied away from prosecuting others who had mishandled classified information. And below, ReasonTV highlighted the massive differences in what Hillary Clinton has said about her private server use versus what the FBI actually determined to be true:

NEXT: On Frida Kahlo's Birthday, Check Out Her "Self-Portrait with Stalin"

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. So I guess this is Formality, part B? I thought we were done with this in 2014, then the Comey reveal kind of made it done-done by at least closing the loop with a formality. Now I guess it’s done-done-done?

    1. Well, I missed the part where Hillary said, “Sorry I messed up. But I promise I won’t run the Presidency of the United States out of an unsecured server.”

      Can anyone point me to the link?

      1. If that’s more convenient for her, why shouldn’t she? The important thing is that her reputation remain intact. Everyone knows that while it’s important to make a show of punishing secrecy violations, our criminal justice resources must mainly be focused on defending the reputations of powerful and influential members of the community.

        That, incidentally, means that nobody should send out any deceitfully deadpan “satirical confessions” in her name, 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/

        Note: the trial transcript and news items on that case reveal that it was appropriately prosecuted as a private favor to a New York University department chairman; the NYTimes even quotes the man 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.'”). Everyone knows this kind of thing is normal practice in America, it’s only when a special favor is done to Hillary Clinton that people complain.

  2. Job security.

    1. I’m shocked, shocked I say.

  3. Gotti would be so proud

  4. “that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

    So much for the “find a low-ranking scapegoat” theory.

    I suppose the scapegoat strategy would be too dangerous. The person they charged would be all like “heck with this, I’m not taking the fall,” and the defense attorney(s) would make the trial into a real embarrassment for Clinton.

    1. Yeah, the scapegoat thing only works in the press. When you see an underling prosecuted, it is often because there was no “there” there and they just wanted to make someone pay. c.f. Scooter Libby.

  5. You know, for the first time in years I’m looking forward to the debates. If Trump doesn’t tear Hillary a new asshole over this he will be demonstrating he is a true member of the stupid party. Calling her out on her corruption and privileged treatment will make some great youtube vids.

    1. What debates?

  6. She’s innocent! A strong woman is finally going to get elected. Get over it, rethuglicans!

    1. The same people who play the sexism card over any criticism of Slickette tend to be the ones who hated Margaret Thatcher.

      1. Margaret Thatcher was on the wrong side of history.

  7. This is my shocked face.

    1. http://tinyurl.com/z6ma6nx

      (Forgot link. Reason, an edit feature, please?)

      1. You want Tulpa to go back and change its stuff to try to make us look bad?

        1. It would be fine as long as we could see edit history.

    2. These celebrities died too young. Or something. He’s dead, isn’t he? Drugs and stuff?

  8. My erection is throbbing the Star Spangled Banner right now.

    1. Can’t…look…away…

      1. Stand and salute!

  9. Even as a new lawyer, I can’t fathom how “no reasonable prosecutor” would not view “extreme carelessness” as equivalent to “gross negligence.”

    1. That’s what makes you a “new lawyer”, you haven’t learned the double-speak of the political appointee lawyer.

      1. But he’s a Bush appointee! That means he has no bias! His word is unassailable!

    2. Those are like toats different words dude.

      (((sarc)))

      1. Jewish sarc?

    3. No reasonable lawyer would want to commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head and then dismembering their corpse, is the implication.

  10. All that’s unfit the news can print.

    1. Are you familiar with the band Trigger Hippie? Roots rock with Joan Osborne singing.

      1. Can’t say that I am. I stole the handle from a Morcheeba song title.

      2. Can’t say that I am. I stole the handle from a Morcheeba song title.

      3. Can’t say that I am. I stole the handle from a Morcheeba song title.

        1. Squirrelz! My first ever!

          I’ve had a standing ovation, a response from Welch, and now squirrelz. Just need to be accused of being Tulpa and I’ll finally feel like I belong!

          1. Shut up, Tulpa.

            1. *sheds a single tear of appreciation to be used later as lube for masturbation purposes

              1. See, now you just screwed it up. It’s “sheds a single tear of appreciation to be used later as lube for (insert euphemism)”

                1. Wiping my server?

                  1. Now you’ve got it!

                2. to be used later as lube for (insert euphemism)

                  How so very…meta.

              2. Have you gotten into a flame war with both John AND cytotoxic yet? You haven’t lost your cherry until that has happened.

        2. good song

      4. What if Trigglypuff were one of us?

        1. You know I’m pretty sure she sat behind me on the bus a while back. Like about 95% sure.

          I have a soft heart for those who leave an indelible embarrassing mark on the Internet, mainly because I’m pretty sure I eventually will myself (I have to stop posting here under my own name, come to think of it. No good can come of it, so I will don an alias.)

          I was kind of pleased to see that she was out and about though, and that no one was staring at her (I kept sneaking peeks, because it is not often that you are in the presence of… Trigglypuff, I guess.) If I learned one thing that day it was that most of the people on the bus don’t have Internet access in the first place, and the homeless lady screaming obscenities at everybody while doing unspeakable things with her shopping is actually a lot more interesting than a now-demure internet celeb. Also, I have to stop pretending I still live in NYC and get a car.

          1. Also- I know this is a little too perfect to be true (the bus part especially,) but I wasn’t even thinking about the Osborne song when recalling that. In retrospect my comment seems… nescient. I just happen to often take a bus she must take a lot during the school year (the PVTA B43) because I imagine you’d have a hard time getting her into a car (OK, that was uncalled for.)

            1. Are you related to our beloved Agile on some level?

              1. Not as far as I know, but the cyborg has a certain way with words, so I’ll take that as a compliment. He’s not known for coherent narrative though.

                What you might be missing is that something very funny happened above. Someone made a reference to a Joan Osborne song, in which she asks “what if God was one of us? Just a stranger on the bus?”

                In response, someone asked “What if Trigglypuff were one of us?” And- and this is the really important part- I didn’t see anything above that, and didn’t realize that there was a song reference happening at all, but just saw “Trigglypuff.”

                So of course I was impelled to tell my Trigglypuff story. Which happened to happen on a bus. And which is literally true- I’m sure I’ve shared a bus with her on many occasions, because we both live in the five college area. I happened to notice her one day because she had recently become internet famous.

                Where it gets kind of funny is that I didn’t realize that I was responding to someone asking, essentially, ‘What if Trigglypuff were one of us, just a stranger on the bus?’ but I wound up responding anyway, in what I’d like to think was a thoughtful manner, modulo a fat joke.

                I’d like to see a cyborg, agile or not, come up with that. (And it’s all true, btw.)

                1. It’s even funnier that I used the term “Presence.”

        2. Just a stranger (rubbing against little boys) on the bus.

  11. Damn it! You were our last hope, Loretta!!

    1. “Damn it! You were our last hope, Loretta!!”

      Straws being grasped…

      1. I’m just snarking about the months-long attitude of “it’s still good! it’s still good!” that was prevalent here and elsewhere.

        Maybe some new Benghazi info will leak and finally crush her!

        1. NO SMOKING GUN.

          Smoking craters and bodies, yes. The pantsuit on fire after lying to the families of the victims she couldn’t be arsed to lift a finger about so close to the general election, yes. BUT NO GUNS.

          And as commie kiddo, insufferable lapdog for the left would say, “NO CRIME EITHER.”

  12. I linked this in the previous thread, but I may get more responses if I post it here, in perhaps the final thread of the night.

    [Villain dangles Sir Isaac Newton over a cliff]

    “You see, Mr. Newton, you of all people should appreciate the *gravity* of your situation!”

    1. Isaac Newton: played by Vin Diesel or Wesley Snipes?

      1. You laugh, but it says that an earlier version of this project would be handled by the director of the Fast and Furious Franchise.

        1. would have been handled

        2. And Blade, hence the joke:)

      2. Some motherfuckers always try to ice-skate uphill.

  13. For Johnson/Weld to make nothing out of this is weird. So you don’t want to engage in negative campaigning fine. To not call out Clinton and the administration’s hypocrisy, all while they ruined the careers and lives of others for mishandling information is ludicrous. These two need to get their acts together. My first choice was McAfee, followed by Peterson, as they were at least a small step in the right direction of promoting liberty while slowly abolishing the state from within.

    Still, I’ll vote for Johnson/Weld, because at least libertarians would get a big foot in the door and have a voice, instead of being shut out completely, while complaining about gov’t and having no chance to do anything about it.

    1. They should make noise about it.

      1. With those new years rattlers, pots, pans, followed immediately by a classical music quartet to end with an operah singer singing Libertarian in a way that makes everyone cry. This will totally mind fuck everyone that hears it.

        1. And then they should pick up a rock, throw it in a lake, and walk away silently.

  14. Do you think a jury would have convicted Hillary if presented with the evidence, and a reading of the law.

    Do you think a judge would have allowed Hillary’s defense attorney to raise the question of intent?

    1. It never would have gone to trial. She would’ve accepted a plea, served no time, and spun it as “see? Nothing but a partisan judge (part of the VRWC), and all they could get me on was some minor technicality”

      1. I agree, but I was asking the “what if” case.

        I think there is a fair possibility that a jury would have hung because it seems probable that a true blue, team blue type on the jury would nullify.

        I am no lawyer, but I assume a judge would not allow a defense lawyer to mention intent since intent is not part of the law.

        1. I think that if a federal prosecutor had brought this case against anyone not previously known to the jury they would have convicted. Look up the rates of conviction they get (98%?) If you are charged by a federal prosecutor you had better not take it to trial. That’s the problem here- whether or not you go to jail was not, initially, supposed to be a decision made by prosecutors.

          1. That’s the problem here- whether or not you go to jail was not, initially, supposed to be a decision made by prosecutors.

            Or maybe they really do just bring cases that they are pretty certain they can win.

            1. They can win any case they want to

      1. Not only that, but the “intent” was hardly pure as the driven snow. Bringing that up is politically dangerous as well. And it could be a perjury trap, because someone would have to make the “intent” argument from the stand.

        Just to be clear, the “intent” of running her own email server was to ensure that the Clintons would have control over any emails that might be subject to open records requests. If anything particularly embarrassing hit her email account, she wanted to be certain that it could be removed from the face of the earth before any discovery process could proceed.

        Sending in her official communications as paper copies shows her intent perfectly well. Her intent was to go as far away from compliance with the law as she dared, while still maintaining a lawyer’s chance of claiming to be in compliance.

        If it all were some innocent mistake made out of convenience, she would have sent over the records as electronic copies. And she wouldn’t have been so violently opposed to State Dept IT personnel telling her that her setup was unsecured and out of compliance.

        No, any federal prosecutor I have ever met (ok, that only covers two people, but still) would have gone after a real target with both guns blazing. There would have been extensive interviews, and charges would be massive – like one charge for each classified document, one charge for each email not preserved, charges for impeding a federal investigation… She’d be facing centuries in prison.

  15. American justice FUCK YEAH!

    Parasitical scum covering for parasitical scum.

    1. Screw it, I’m voting for you. I can be part of your campaign, because I make monocles sexy, and it will help boost ur poll numbers.

      1. I would save your sorry asses.

  16. Well, that’s a relief.

  17. And the farcical witch hunt draws to a close. Suck it scumbags. Hillary 2016!

    Nah, just fucking with you, this blows.

  18. no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.

    So, if anyone happened to have been caught in a lie during the process, we’ll just pretend it never happened.

    I presume everyone who was involved with the case is also going to be NDA’d such that they’ll be jailed for even thinking about talking to anyone about it.

    1. Shit, how about just pulling their security clearances?

      1. Doesn’t matter. If Hillary gets elected, her staff will get Yankee White clearances, regardless of their past history.

        1. Why not?
          She’ll set up her own server so the public never has access to her lies and manipulations which, like the last, will promptly be hacked by low-level IT Intel ops world-wide. So her staff might just as well be given any clearance at all and she might just as well do a blanket mailing to all other national governments.

    1. He didn’t do anything embarrassing before 2004. Sounds plausible.

    2. That’s a work of art. Its actually sincere? Jesus, that should be in the onion.

    3. Coercing an intern into licking your butthole is a sign of mental acuity.

    4. So, it’s totally not syphilis. Got it.

    5. Unfortunately, this pump also introduces toxic gases, fat globules, and bits of plastic debris into the bloodstream of the patient under anesthesia.

      Is this pump made in China?

  19. Oligarchs are going Garch.

    Damn it feels good to be Gangsta.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJFDM0Ig4y4

    1. I would vote for Hillary if she uses that at her next appearance.

    2. Or as a particular commenter would say, “Daaaamn it feels good to be a hamsta.”

  20. A question i have is = why did they give Pagliano immunity if there were no actual underlying crimes to be immune “from”? – iow, if “no reasonable prosecutor would pursue” these cases, then why would have his immunity have been necessary?

    And what testimony did he give in exchange for that? because investigators don’t give that sort of immunity unless what they’re being offered directly implicates their targets.

    I think re: the particulars of this case, most of it is mo’deader and done than Benghazi – but i think the larger narrative? is NOT. There were a half-dozen things extending from this idea of “keeping her communications secret and unavailable” which could have been pursuable criminal investigations, and all they seem to have actually nixed are the “document destruction” (which very little has been said about), and the “mis-handling of classified intel” – and i’m still not sure the latter is really completely cleared up….

    for instance = where did Sid Blumenthal get raw NSA intel? his mere access to that material indicates a crime was committed – as it transmitting it via unsecure email.

    1. e.g.

      one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton’s emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton’s unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.

      To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.

      For Lynch to say “no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.” seems to suggest they cleared that matter all up, without ever saying how.

      I’d think someone, somewhere would have to explain why that specific piece of evidence was determined to be “non-prosecutable”

      1. I think they did. There was the unstated “she’s about to be elected president” factor that negates everything else. You just have to read between the lines.

        Kinda like the way all those bill of rights amendments have unwritten “unless we really want to” clauses right after “shall make no law”.

        You just have to know how to speak government.

    2. A question i have is = why did they give Pagliano immunity if there were no actual underlying crimes to be immune “from”? – iow, if “no reasonable prosecutor would pursue” these cases, then why would have his immunity have been necessary?

      An interesting question. There’s still the Clinton Foundation shenanigans to investigate, even with DOJ accepting a 2017 date for State and Hillary’s staff to turn over documents relating to those allegations.

      If there isn’t an indictment by, say, August 15, I think she’s clear. Gotta have her win the nomination first.

      1. The crimes Comey laid out in excoriating detail for a quarter hour before stroking out and reversing course.

        1. Twitter derps out posting about Comey’s “abuse of power” in reading the specifics before getting to the conclusion.

    3. That was just Stratfor bullshit.

      The real lapse in judgment is that Hillary relied on it.

      Vetted intel from the NSA and CIA, or this random email from Blumenthal, who also had business dealings in Libya? Hmmmm…

      1. That was just Stratfor bullshit.

        ?

        Did you actually read the article?

        Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal’s June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeed based on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthal’s highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

        Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified “Top Secret / Special Intelligence.” Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

        The guy who wrote the article was a signals intelligence analyst. You’d think he might know the difference between Statfor exec-sums and raw NSA reports.

        If this was subsequently cleared up, point me at the source.

        1. I’m mobile right now, but most of his shit came from a guy named Drumheller (sp?).

          Oh, and most of it was wrong. Like, really wrong.

          No, I didn’t read the article. Isn’t this Reason?

          1. most of his shit came from a guy named Drumheller (sp?).

            yes – as noted in the piece

            Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal’s intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died last August before email-gate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports.

            Mere possession of un-filtered NSA raw intel w/o highest-level security clearances is a felony. The question of “where it came from” is a whole criminal inquiry on its own. Hence my wondering why Lynch suggests “everyone is in the clear’. I’ve seen nothing addressing this specific issue.

          2. most of it was wrong. Like, really wrong.

            whether the information was accurate or not (re: the likelihood of a coup in Sudan) is irrelevant. If the information was in fact what is claimed (raw NSA reporting with SAP level clearance required), the issue is why/how anyone was accessing it in this manner.

            1. It raises more than just that issue. It may or may not have been lifted from intercepts.

              But Clinton RELIED on intel coming from Blumenthal’s AOL account.

              There’s not enough cake in the world for that.

  21. Lynch had previously said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI and prosecutors in the case.

    It was an inspired guess.

    1. Inspired by a certain meeting; that’s my guess.

      1. What really happened on that plane?

        *shudder*

    2. Bubba showed her the dirt they had on Comet…

  22. It would be nice to see the immunity deal that Pagliano got, and also the transcript of his interrogation after immunity.

    1. It would also have been nice if I had bothered to read Gilmore’s post above.

    1. How’s the truck?

      1. Compression went fine, little lower than I was hoping. I rerouted the fuel line to avoid the heat of the engine. The real problem is the inconsistency of the issue.

        1. Yeah, sounds a lot like the Ford issue I had. Talked to everybody, checked everything, replaced lots, etc. Finally, I ran across an old Ford guy at a parts store who instantly knew the trouble I was describing.
          So, first check the intertubes with correct keywords.
          Second, call Toyota dealership and ask to speak to their most experienced (oldest) mechanic, and explain problem. He might just tell you ” oh, that’s such and such, you just need X”

          1. I changed the fuel pump like 10 X, lol. In my defense, the truck originally had a mechanical fuel pump, had been converted electric, somewhere along the truck’s long life, a cheap inline had been installed, with cheap rubber hose lines.
            I re routed the fuel lines to eliminate problems, changed the cheap pump with another cheap pump…. was getting ready to rebuild the carb when i went into a parts store to buy something stupid like a light bulb or something. As I was paying, I asked the old guy at the counter about my problem, and he said “oh, that’s X, it’s well known, everybody who goes back country in an old Bronco carries a spare.”
            I’d had that thing for almost a year, wrestling with that same problem.
            I think it was $12, maybe 7 years ago.
            YRMV

  23. Who could have seen this coming?

    It’s like the Red Queen on Opposite Day. “Acquittal first, investigation afterward. Trial, never.”

  24. Seriously. What would they think in Brussels if we indicted The Most Qualified Presidential Candidate in History (a woman, no less) for some utterly meaningless procedural faux pas?

    They’d laugh at us. Is that what you want?

    1. brussels never did have a sense of humor.

  25. One law for thee; another for me.

    https://reason.com/archives/200…..ck-fitzger

    On a scale of 1 to 10, Reason Ed. How do you self-assess your journalistic integrity? A 4? That’s about what I give Clinton

    1. You picked the wrong week to start huffing spray paint.

      1. …start?! More like after years of huffing, he’s finally getting down to his last few unmolested neurons, and they’ve been found wanting.

      2. I’m just here to point and laugh at people who think KKKLINTON’s BENGHAZI EMAILS are the most important thing ever. She voted for a war that killed a million people. Go with that, I say.

        1. american socialist|7.6.16 @ 9:48PM|#
          “I’m just here to point and laugh at people who think KKKLINTON’s BENGHAZI EMAILS are the most important thing ever. She voted for a war that killed a million people. Go with that, I say.”

          Translated from brain-de3ad speak:
          We should ignore the fact that she flaunts the rule of law since she also agreed with the current and past president to make war.
          See? To a lefty, it’s pick one of two, since, as a lefty, she can’t be wrong twice!

          1. The current president started a land war in the ME by occupying a country that never threatened or attacked us? Where? In Darfur?

            1. I guess it’s totes different if the current president occupies a non-threatening Maghreb country using proxies and sells weapons to Islamists. At least it wasn’t a land war!

            2. “The current president started a land war in the ME by occupying a country that never threatened or attacked us?”

              Isn’t that cute folks?
              Commie kid, what’s a ‘kinetic military action’?
              And of course, continuing the earlier war isn’t the fault of the current CiC. Nope, not at all! Bush put a magic spell on Obo, so he can’t end the war!
              C’mpn, kids, help Buffalo Bob take that magic spell off!
              What a pathetic excuse for an apologist…

              1. Where were all you right-wing peaceniks from 2001-2008? Protesting, right?

                1. You’re in the wrong part of town, son.

                2. The bulk of the commentariat have been protesting against the war from before day one, you moron.

                  That rejection of the war has continued unabated every day whether the war was prosecuted by Bush or Obama. It is the lefty peace protesters that suddenly disappeared in 2008. They never gave a shit about the war, just a bunch of pinko useful idiots.

                  It is the difference between having principles and not.

                  Serious question: Awful troll or genuine idiot?

                    1. Hey! We’re not as bad as Youtube!

                    2. All right. Go.

                      *waves hand*

                    3. That was by far the best part.

                  1. “Serious question: Awful troll or genuine idiot?”

                    Imbecile.

                3. Some of us were protesting all along, amsoc.

                4. american socialist|7.6.16 @ 10:10PM|#
                  “Where were all you right-wing peaceniks from 2001-2008? Protesting, right?”
                  And that addresses my comments how, other than a pathetic attempt at misdirection?
                  What a sleazy pile of shit….

    2. If Clinton scores 4, she’s unfit to be president, right?

      Comey says Clinton handled hundreds of classified info. Hundreds!

      1. Yep. I’m not voting for her. You shouldn’t vote for Trump as he is an incoherent buffoon.

        1. Vote for Gary Johnson. He’s definitely not perfect, but he’s infinitely better than Hillary, Bernie, and Trump.

          But you won’t, will you?

          1. I’m leaning towards Jill stein since she seems to actually believe in AGW– as opposed to libertarians, who think it’s a plot by Magneto and his cabal of scientists.

            1. Of course you would; it fulfills your forced redistribution fantasies.

            2. I’m leaning towards Jill stein since she seems to actually believe in AGW

              Oh, Lordy! Hallelujah!

              1. Beat me to it.

                I believe in cauliflower farts, FWIW.

                  1. And what do you think my favorite part of the video was?

        2. Yeah, all you folks, you make sure to take commie-kids advice, ’cause he knows you were gonna pull that R lever and vote the ticket!

          1. You mean you think there won’t be a lot of gnashing of teeth and a lot of people around here justifying their vote for Trump on the grounds that HRC must not be President. Let’s put some money in escrow and see who wins that bet.

            1. I’ve already admitted that I’ll vote for the orange clown if CO looks like it’s close. Hell, I’d vote for you’re stupid socialist ass If it meant HRC never sets foot in the WH again.

            2. I’m tempted. Four years of wailing from closet Dems like you, while witnessing the absolute turd sandwich he’d make of the office and breaking his backers’hearts, would be a treat

            3. No Chinaman could ever coherently utilise the American.script , right racist?

            4. american socialist|7.6.16 @ 10:17PM|#
              “You mean you think there won’t be a lot of gnashing of teeth and a lot of people around here justifying their vote for Trump on the grounds that HRC must not be President.”

              A ‘lot of people’? Given you’re a lefty, I’m sure that specifics are a bit beyond you. Care to let us know how many Steiners jump to the hag ‘on the grounds that Trump must not be president’?
              “Let’s put some money in escrow and see who wins that bet.”

  26. I think we ought to be asking if Nixon would have been (almost) impeached in the current climate. I’m not always very serious, but I mean this question very seriously.

    I think we are so partisan now that the answer is “only if the opposition party held a _lot_ of seats.” And it’s extreme partisanship that I think is the culprit. Back then maybe you were a corrupt asshole, but if you got caught at it even your own party would throw you to the sharks- they were ashamed (and maybe knew that shame might cling to them in the next election.)

    Now? I live in Massachusetts. Our Democrats could eat babies on national TV and get elected (OK, hyperbole, but…) Something similar is true of Republicans in many areas of the South. The upshot is that the more partisan your base, the more you can get away with.

    Our political class has not failed to notice this, and has not failed to take advantage of it. They know they can get away with shameful things, because for their base to admit that their behavior was shameful might mean a political swing, and we are so partisan now that we can’t have that. So we get shameful behavior, out in the open, in a way we never would have even thirty years ago.

    1. ^^^^This

    2. The Republicans and Democrats are not equal on this, at all. The media will cover for a Democrat as long as they possibly can, while a hint of Republican corruption gets the full Woodward and Bernstein treatment.
      Also to admit to my bias, I personally think that most Republicans are just fundamentally more honest than Democrats.

      1. They’re certainly held to account by an overwhelmingly hostile media that regularly runs interference for Dems.

      2. Historically, incarcerated Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2:1 ratio.

        To the extent we can measure these things, I tend to agree.

        You have to be a special kind of misguided, dishonest and disingenuous asshole to be progressive. They rarely practice what they preach.

        1. Just look at commie “too busy enjoying the plush American life to starve in the streets of Venezuela” kid.

      3. DenverJ|7.6.16 @ 10:00PM|#
        “The Republicans and Democrats are not equal on this, at all. The media will cover for a Democrat as long as they possibly can, while a hint of Republican corruption gets the full Woodward and Bernstein treatment.”

        Wiki isn’t the final source, but a good start, and nearly all the entries under media bias reflected this:
        “…The survey found that the large majority of journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including issues such as abortion, affirmative action, social services and gay rights. The authors […] concluded firstly that journalists’ coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes and education, and secondly that the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. The authors suggested this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality, a variation of confirmation bias.”

        1. You’re right about this, I think, right now. I’m old enough to have seen it swing both ways (remember when Ed Meese was President? Maybe not…)

          The thing I care about, more than anything else, is… did they used to call it probity? I’m willing to compromise some principles for that. But I want some probity. I want our elected officials to be humble, I want them to be decent, and I want them, above all, to be held accountable.

          I don’t think we’ll ever have a real libertarian moment. I’d just like to have a moment of probity.

          1. “…(remember when Ed Meese was President? Maybe not…)…”

            Joking?
            Anyhow, Nixon was held to a standard I’d call probity; unfortunately, any D pol is not held to the same standard.

            1. Of course I’m joking. Meese was never president- he just acted like he was, and a bit more. Maybe grand inquisitor or something. The more I think about it, the more I think things haven’t changed much. Who remembers Ed Meese?

    3. I think you’re right.

      Really, corruption is so bad now because the people (obviously I’m speaking in generalities) tolerate, ratify, and even support it.

    4. “Our Democrats could eat babies on national TV and get elected (OK, hyperbole, but…) Something similar is true of Republicans in many areas of the South.”

      Vance McAllister got caught smooching a staffer, consensually, and lost his office. Many R pols may not be principled but the R voting base around here is exponentially more principled than the D base. It’s not even close.

      1. All the Republicans had to do to take back the presidency was find a moderately honest man (or woman, to be fair.) Someone who at least looked like he was going to be honest and fair.

        Instead we have Trump. I’m sorry, I was never a Republican, but I’m sure as hell not one now. Is the media partisan? Sure. Do I agree with you in many respects? Yes, I do. More than you might think.

        But you can’t put Trump and probity in the same sentence without laughing. It can’t be _that_ hard to find an actual candidate, and I’d like to see a decent candidate run against Hillary in 2020.

        1. Someone who at least looked like he was going to be honest and fair.

          They tried that – Romney – and he promptly had his character assassinated by the press.

          (NB I’m not saying I agree with Romney politically, just that he’s seems to be a reasonably decent human being for a politician.)

    5. I think we ought to be asking if Nixon would have been (almost) impeached in the current climate.

      The law isn’t gone, it just doesn’t apply to the privileged. Marginalized groups like blacks, homeless, poor people, and Republicans will still feel its full brunt.

    6. I think Slick Willy was a pioneer in this area.

      His genius move was to realize that just because he was getting some strange in the Oval Office, there was no legal reason that he could be forced to leave. Sure all his predecessors would have resigned and slunk out of sight. Instead he brazened his way through the whole thing.

      That really is Hillary’s playbook now too. No matter how horrible her actions are, just lie and lie and wait it out. Eventually your core supporters will rationalize away your actions. They will justify that the reason she ate babies on TV in Massachusetts is because she is a big supporter of the Eat Local movement and that proves she is committed to fighting AGW.

      Normal people – shoot, even 99% of sociopaths – would go hide when caught in all the outright lies that Hillary has told. She just leans forward and waits everyone out. Given her lack of any conscience, she is probably the only one who has been sleeping well lately.

      1. “Given her lack of any conscience, she is probably the only one who has been sleeping well lately.”

        Tony, who posts here, does well as a moral cripple, as does commie kid and turd. So it’s not confined to lefty political assholes.

  27. From the “so crazy it could be true” files: Comey opted to spare Hillary to spare America from Bernie Sanders. It’s an eight part logical chain that attempts to make sense of Comey’s logical pratfall, and hey, it’s a little less unreasonable than the They Have Something On Him theory.

    I think he’s wrong about Sanders. I think they’d run Biden-Warren and make some hand waving excuse about second-place winners being first losers. And frankly, it’s not imponderable that an establishment man (even if we assume, as the author does, that he’s not a hack) would go the establishment route if for no better reason than rocking the establishment boat is bad in and of itself.

    But hey, silver lining postulation is fun.

  28. So there are no more libertarians. You can only live as a libertarian if there is rule of law. There is no rule of law. So I don’t what the fuck you guys are calling yourselfs now, but you aren’t libertarians if you can’t practice libertarianism. And practicing libertarianism is, in part, about having recourse to the law. So, if you are now wronged by a member of the protected class, what are y’all going to do? NOthing except bitch in this impotent echo chamber maybe. I can’t imagine none of the glib lawyers and others with nice upper middle class incomes are going to risk…well anything.

    1. These days, the Loyalists far outnumber the Patriots, so an armed revolution would be a fool’s errand.

      1. I don’t think that’s true. At any rate, the American Revolution avoided becoming a shitshow like the French Revolution (IMO) not because we were better people, but because it was a war between states, rather than between people. If populists were able to get even 20 states to secede, Uncle Sam would be finished. They might win a war (though I expect any number of foreign powers would lend their support to the rebels in secret), but if so the cost would be so high as to destroy America.

    2. Those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel, but then they are of all men the least inclined to do so.
      – ARISTOTLE

  29. A novel argument, I’d say.

    Glass, Carter and Moore say forcing them to allow guns in their classrooms violates their rights to free speech, due process and equal protection. They also argue that campus carry violates their Second Amendment rights “by compelling them as public employees to passively acquiesce in the presence of loaded weaponry in their place of public employment without the individual possession and use of such weaponry in public being well-regulated.”

    Moore, who is openly gay and spoke at a November protest against the new gun law, said at the time that it reminded her of her struggle for the right to marry.

    “We are armed with reason. We are armed with data. We are armed with passion. We are armed with longevity,” Moore said. “And we will make this change.”

    Okay, then.

    1. Decades of sticking their heads in that blender certainly speaks to their longevity.

    2. Moore, who is openly gay and spoke at a November protest against the new gun law, said at the time that it reminded her of her struggle for the right to marry.

      I’m sure her actions here remind her of the actions of the anti-gay-marriage crowd.

    3. “Moore, who is openly gay and spoke at a November protest against the new gun law, said at the time that it reminded her of her struggle for the right to marry.”

      I’m not gonna click on that; is Moore a teacher allowed to infect children with this sort of stupidity?

  30. Did straffinrun get his account back?

    1. What happened? I read something about his comments getting wiped, but I have no knowledge of when it happened or why.

      1. Hell, if mine on Tuesday didn’t get me blocked I have no idea what would.

      2. See Double You|7.6.16 @ 10:31PM|#
        “What happened? I read something about his comments getting wiped, but I have no knowledge of when it happened or why.”

        Couple of days ago, I quoted and ‘replied’ to one of his posts with support; hope I didn’t end up causing any problem. But we’re all stuck not knowing whether there is a problem and what it might be.
        Hey, KMW! No making someone ‘disappear’ in the night; WIH happened? This ain’t the USSR nor the NSC.

    2. Never heard of the guy. Must be a figment of your imagination.

      1. Seriously though. Without getting re-banned, can you take a guess at what did it?

        1. Revealed as a tulpa sock?

    3. I sort of feel like that name is familiar, but if I think about it too hard I start getting these weird headaches.

      1. Today is the September of the rest of your life. *flutters fingers*

  31. Well, pay for me, those of a religious bent, I’ve just started my free windows 10 upgrade…

    1. Hey, I bought my copy already, I’m not going to pay for yours.

      I like 10. Not like like-like, I’m not a power user by any means, but it boots up and does stuff and I rarely notice it, which is all I want from an OS. Neither be seen nor heard.

      1. OK, what improvements make it worth learning all the new shortcuts and keystrokes?
        IOWs, why would I install it? (I’ve got 7)

        1. Because my Mac suffered a harddrive fail, was getting long in the tooth anyway, and I wanted to build a tower. I like that they’ve finally gotten a Spotlight-like system search. I have no idea whether that’s new with 10, but it’s the only thing about my Mac I expected I’d miss. It’s stable, which wasn’t my general opinion of Windows when I left it in the XP era. After several months of ownership I’ve had it lock up once or twice, and no BSOD. Once it got a little hinky about a USB device and wouldn’t start up, but that was easy to remedy.

          It might be that I’m just not a developer or programmer and I don’t do anything terribly technical, but I have no complaints.

          1. Lat year, I replaced my hardware with an ‘all-in-one’ since it was X years old, and had the 10 removed and paid for a 7 Pro replacement.
            Wife is dealing with 10; her hardware is good, it’s a bit of a pain.
            I’m still waiting for MS to make it painful to keep 7; the carrots being offered look like a horse might love them.

          2. I like that they’ve finally gotten a Spotlight-like system search.

            What do you mean, finally? They’ve had that since Vista.

      2. Well, we’ll see. I really need to figure out the correct way to set this machine up for dual boot. My last machine was a cluster f***, but it worked. This is such a nice machine that I’d like something more… elegant.
        Also, my only Linux familiarity is with Mint, because it is Debian based and so is Kali/Backtrack, the first Linux I became familiar with, meaning that when I decided set up a dual boot, Mint the flavor of Linux I chose. So, free advice from geeks: bring it on.

        1. Setting up dual-boot with Mint is fairly easy, so long as your starting from a fresh Mint installation. I don’t know how you’d go about doing it if both OS’s are already installed.

          1. Yeah, I inherited a machine that had been stolen and then recovered, so auctioned because insurance had already replaced it.
            Very nice, set up for network stuff beyond my ken, or even my Barbie.
            So, I feel nervous wiping the machine, because then I lose all that software, even though I can’t use the software because i don’t have a license…
            I guess, now that I’ve spelled it all out, I should just format the hard drive (you know, like with a cloth), install Mint, then install windows whatever.
            Thanks, sometimes it helps just to have someone to listen while you put it all together in your own mind.

            1. Never, ever, ever do Linux, followed by Windows.

              You will be in for a world of pain.

              (I’d snark about forgoing Windows entirely, but I’m trying to be helpful)

    2. Don’t use an Ethernet connection to connect the computer to your router/modem. If you do, you’ll have a dickens of a time turning off automatic updates.

  32. I watched the whole press conference. Amazing. It did sound like they had to do a lot of work and that it was pain in the ass work. Not only did he tell us that she and all her cronies were negligent……..cough….er i mean careless, she and her attorneys actively destroyed evidence.

    We all know that “no reasonable prosecutor” is just lawyer bukkake for, in this instance, passing the buck. Or maybe he was right because a prosecutor crossing Clinton, inc., could find family members dead.

    And then he had the iron balls to tells us that if it was anyone else, there’d be consequences.

    . It is Comey’s job to go get the evidence. It is DOJ job to file charges and those spineless cocksucker accepted Coney’s recommendations before the ink was dry. Comey punted because he is smart.

  33. I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact that we now live in some are equal, but some are more equal. That isn’t a neat little literary morsel in a cool allegory, it is policy. That is policy……

    1. Oh, cry me a river. Nothing new here. That has always been the case.

  34. At least she took 24 hours to carefully go over a report one year and millions of dollars in the making before coming to a conclusion.

  35. It’s Official: No Charges for Hillary Clinton over Email Scandal We live in a Banana Republic

  36. OT, teachers unions despise those who would help the kids:

    “SF school leaders give Teach for America a time-out”
    […]
    “But over the past several years, the organization has been condemned by critics, including teachers unions, as a crutch that fills the country’s neediest classrooms with inexperienced and cheap labor.
    […]
    Others, including school board member Jill Wynns, have opposed Teach for America’s financial connections to supporters of charter schools and market-based education reform.”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/edu…..463170.php (may be pay-walled)

    The horror! Kids could be taught by those not beholden to the miserable fucking union!

  37. when the heavy drink sweeps
    and bright minds heave at the ceramic
    altars
    which I probably should not be proud of
    never conversing with because
    high tolerance for tall bottles and needles
    does not mean a boy is cool or whatnot…

    however and in spite of, the wrinkled despot and her team of compromised newts fashioned
    an escape plan which surprised no one and so on…
    so.

    all this shit is nationally upending and picnics and firewhorls.

    yea, the ‘l’ is meant. a god ass scuttlin’ whorl of fires. So, firewhorl it is FUCK the k.

    you fucking sleepy worms

  38. Fucking sleeping eels all you chattering lightning strike whores

  39. Fucking napping dead poltergeist butthole licking slut snakes- every fucking single one of you

    All these bitches are jerking and quivering to greasy dreams of ball sack warm galant jizz beds of kneeling princesses
    and every single one of these naked thread gods are thrusting their dreams into the throats of space queens sliding their thumbs into the starfishes of thread cummers.

    and so on.

    the jizz spurts and comments distend and articles roll on and on and times and moons remain the same. bro.

  40. fucking bright tapping whores all these normally clattering nuns fucking ninjas with clacking alive presses.

    this fucking place is dead because the army of supernatural drug capes have passed out on the couch of FUCKING oblivion- not that agile doesn’t understand this swarthy swampy ethereal trapatistic oddliness ward of collisions and letters merging like rivers into the shallows of stamping beasts led by kings.

    every fucking letter is a door
    and a very narrow door at that
    every fucking letter is composed of
    swerves and etch.
    A single letter is a forest of math thorns and dreams

  41. fuck is a word reserved for drunken pretend practitioners of dreams. over use of fuck means practically nothing and is almost as awful as kneeling to suns or gods.

  42. i often ask why I even come here and connect with consciousness
    i really am not part of because I am so goddamn odd and beautiful
    I have no connection with the ‘all’ out there.
    I i I i I i I… eye. I .. what and whom is I. and why?
    and why is and how I the eye connects and absorbs this particular world.
    a singular triangulation of dispensations, my odd swerving eels.
    I am and am not. The fingers tricking spaces on screams and lilting trippiness owls and dastardly street lights smashing their shadows of off horrors and tapping cupids.
    little eye spy.
    all spy lovely simple boy

  43. why post deep recognitions to the not ever give a fuck thread worly.

    Fuck the future of bullshit and its myriad of worthless crap

  44. Agile falls gently and never to be seen again into the realistism of tiney sowlin

  45. she ended her turtles and the man clinton looked down and cut his balls off with scissor.

  46. wrackle fill tjeeeee

  47. Section 793 (f)(2)
    Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,…
    (2)having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer? Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    Doesn’t that apply to the SAP documents found in on her server? I’m pretty sure they are suppossed to be on an unsecured server.

  48. Sweet Jesus…..this is fucking awful
    http://www.twincities.com/2016…..n-heights/

  49. uptil I saw the receipt which was of $4452 , I accept …that…my mom in-law woz like truley bringing home money part time from their laptop. . there neighbour haz done this for only 9 months and resantly paid the loans on there condo and purchased a gorgeous Cadillac . go to this site …..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.