Hillary Clinton

Clinton Email Statement Clarifies That She Still Has Trouble With the Truth

The Democratic nominee attempts to clarify a false statement about a misleading claim.

|

C-SPAN

Last weekend, Democratic presidential nominee falsely claimed that FBI Director James Comey had declared her public statements about her use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State to be truthful. As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote, that statement was itself not truthful. Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler gave Clinton's statement four Pinocchios, and further cited her for repeating the claim after it had been debunked.

It was typical of Clinton: Not only were her initial statements misleading, so was her attempt to explain those statements.

Today, Clinton attempted to excuse her claims by saying that "she may have short-circuited" and would attempt to "clarify" further. Her clarification of her clarification does not do much to clarify the matter.

Clinton's clarification consisted in part of noting that many of the classified emails that were sent over her privately run email server were not marked as such, and no one could have been expected to know that they were classified. Via CBS News, here is Clinton's phrasing:

"Director Comey said that only three out of 30,000 [emails] had anything resembling classified markers. What does that mean? Usually if any of you have ever served in the government, a classified document has a big heading on the top which makes very clear what the classification is. And in questioning, Director Comey made the point that the three emails out of the 30,000 did not have the appropriate markings. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that anyone including myself would have not suspected that they were classified."

Clinton is leaning hard on the notion that she could not have reasonably been expected to know that the unmarked emails sent through her system were classified, and, presumably, that she therefore deserves a pass on her behavior. Basically, she says that she made a mistake but that she could not have been expected to act differently given the circumstances.

That does not quite line up with what FBI Director James Comey concluded in his lengthy July statement following the agency's investigation into Clinton's email practices. While it is true that many of the classified emails that passed through Clinton's private email system were not marked classified, Comey said, "even if information is not marked 'classified' in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

In addition, Comey noted the existence of several email chains concerning matters classified as Top Secret or Special Access Program. And he specifically said that the evidence the FBI found supports the notion that Clinton should have known better than to hold those conversations on her unsecure, private email account.

"These [classified] chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters," Comey said. "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

Clinton's wants us to believe she was essentially truthful and that her email practices were mistaken but reasonable. That position is at odds with Comey's assertion that Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless" and that any reasonable person in her position "should have known" better than to converse about classified information as she did. Clinton's statement today is less a clarification of her previous statement and more a confirmation that she still has trouble with the truth.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Admits Error (Sort of), Facebook Cracks Down on Clickbait, Piketty Criticized: P.M. Links

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. It was typical of Clinton: Not only were her initial statements misleading, so was her attempt to explain those statements.

    C’mon, Peter. She lied. Say it. You know you can.

    1. I think they revoke his card if he puts something like that in print.

      1. until I looked at the bank draft ov $9106 , I have faith that my neighbour was like they say trully bringing home money in their spare time from their computer. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than 10 months and recently cleared the debts on their appartment and bought a great new Lancia . Learn More ?????? Telltheinternet.com

    2. Give Pete a break. He’s not saying “unfortunate” or “troubling”.

      1. What about “careless”?

    3. Trump lies; Hillary misleads. It’s right there in the Cosmotarian Style Book.

      1. Rather like “men fart; women just poot”.

    4. I’ll just leave this here.

      1. More Clinton murders? What a surprise.

    5. Man doesn’t want to end up like Breitbart or Flynn.

    6. I don’t know. Can robots lie? I think she just admitted to being a robot. An evil robot.

    7. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, pretty cool. working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. here is i started.. Go this website more info work… http://bit.do/oMaVAv

  2. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that anyone including myself would have not suspected that they were classified.”

    How could anyone expect the Secretary of State to recognize classified information when reading it? That’s crazy.

    1. Secretaries of State hardly ever deal with classified matters anyhow, right?

    2. I love how one moment she’s arguing that as SoS she has the ultimate authority to determine whether or not something is classified, and the next she’s arguing that she couldn’t possibly be expected to have the expertise to recognize whether information is classified or not.

      1. ^This.

        I noticed that too but barely a mention of it from the geniuses in the media.

      2. I’ve had this go around with progtards now since this shit broke.

        She claimed that there were no classified emails and that she gave everything to the investigators. The notion that the SOS does not send or receive classified information via email is simply not believable.

        1. There are classified (encrypted) and unclassified servers. Classified servers and the computers linked to them need to be used in a vault.

    3. Apparently the Secretary if State is not an important enough position to receive classified e-mails, as she was incapable of legally receiving any.

  3. I don’t know who this “Clinton” person is or maybe he just misspelled “Trump”.

    1. You’ve seen the original Star Wars trilogy, right? She’s the one in the black hood that shoots lightning from her fingers.

      1. You know this whole election kind of feels like a Star Wars movie. We’ve got Emperor Palapatine on one side and Jar Jar Binks on the other.

        1. Which makes the theory that Jar Jar is a Sith even more amusing/tragic.

      2. No, she’s the one in the brown robes that mentored Luke. What she told you was the truth…from a certain point of view.

      3. So does this make the server Revan? After all his memory was wiped, like with a cloth.

  4. “Trouble”?

    As long as the truth stays far away, where it belong, there will be no trouble.

    1. I got a new PC this week and I cannot type on it for shit.

      1. My old PC ha a ticky keyboard where the ” ” key ometimesss doesn’t type at all and sssometime it typessss bunche of them all at the ame time.

  5. “…has trouble with the truth.”

    She is a bald-faced liar. She lies to our faces when she knows we know she is lying. She lies about things she knows are easy to verify and knows will be debunked. She parses her words about every fucking thing. She sold the office of SOS for favors to foreign govts.

    She is a pathological liar and has engaged in felonious behavior for decades. She has vowed to grind the Bill of Rights to dust. She has never done anything that didn’t benefit her personally.

    But Trump is the evil.

    Sorry Pete but this is weak cover. You shot your credibility weeks ago.

    1. She parses her words about every fucking thing.

      She’s a lawyer.

      Lawyers do that.

      1. She is not a lawyer.

        She went to law school and was once a lawyer.

        Her lawyer credentials were revoked years ago IIRC.

        1. Hers lapsed. Bill was disbarred.

  6. “I’m too fucking dumb to identify classified material by its actual content.”

    BUT SHE’S THE ONE WHO’S QUALIFIED TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

    1. But look over there! Trump said he saw the plane with the ransom in it on a video and then retracted!

      THAT’s the big story, not the fact that a $400m ransom was paid, in cash, to a state sponsor of terrorism.

      Fuck me, but I get more disgusted every day with the crap coverage of this race. And Reason is only a smidge better than most other outlets.

      1. And Reason is only a smidge better than most other outlets.

        They rank in the bottom quintile of the worst perpetrators of histrionic coverage, and I think I’m being generous. But then again, after seeing Matt and Nick at the shitshow debate in Las Vegas, it’s clear that they’ve been restraining themselves quite a bit in their reporting.

  7. Seriously, reading this fucking creature’s statements are triggering.

    1. 100% you’ll be stuck with them for another three months.

      50/50 chance you’ll be treated to them for another four years.

      1. “50/50 chance you’ll be treated to them for another four years.”

        You are an optimist.

        1. Its early days, the actual news is unlikely to be helpful to Clinton, and she is a perfectly awful campaigner.

          Don’t confuse the Twitter controversy of the week with anything substantial.

          1. +1

            I remember when plagiarism was going to be the defining issue of the campaign.

            Seems like years ago.

            It was last week.

        2. If she has one of those coughing fits in the debates, and Trump walks over with a concerned look on his face, puts a hand on her shoulder, and asks if she’s OK, it will be game…set…match.

          1. Hardly. Hawaii Democrats knowingly elected a dead person who died before voting started, so they could have a revote to keep it away from a Republican.

            And this headline: “Hillary ill, Trump responds by molesting her.”

            1. To be fair, I’d vote for any dead candidate in a second.

              Of course, I’d be crushed when I found out that they were going to have a revote to give it to some other living candidate.

          2. If he puts a hand on her, progressives everywhere will accuse him of sexual harassment, and the SJW’s will scream sexual assault.

            1. What if while she was gasping on her hands and knees, Trump got behind her and pantomimed fucking her? Including his best “O” face? Maybe a few fake swats on the ass too?

              1. Elected then and there. No need to hold the vote, just give him the ceremonial pen and phone.

          3. Touch, Hillary. Are you fuckin’ nuts?! Trump will immediately suffer from Rick Lazio Syndrome and never recover. If she collapses on the stage, he better stay away too.

  8. This is hardly breaking news.

    …she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

    – 1974 – Jerry Zeifman, Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings

  9. How can anyone think any person with an IQ above 70 would not conclude that extensively (or even exclusively) using a private email account on a private server to conduct official SOS business would inevitably result in classified material ending up on that account and server? Clinton fans simultaneously praise her intellect and competency and then expect us to believe this was a reasonable, unintentional mistake?

  10. Finally, an appropriately terrible picture of the vile hag. Was that so hard, Reason?

    1. I’m confused, are there other types?

      1. Just a joke being lifted from the comments on another post

  11. More like:

    100%
    80/20

    Vile, lying, corrupt, venal, POS.

    1. Vile, lying, corrupt, venal, POS.

      Soon coming to a nightmare near you:

      Vile, lying, corrupt, venal, POS, POTUS.

  12. Wait a minute.
    Do you mean to tell me that Hillary Cinton LIES?!?!
    Well I never!
    *Quickly installs Shocked Face*

  13. This couldn’t possibly really be a Suderman post, it’s critical of Hillary. And as “everyone knows” he’s a huge COZMO CUCK-FAG PROGTARD who’s clearly Ready for Hillary. IT IS KNOWN.

    1. It’s mildly critical of Hillary for being involved in one of the worst scandals since Iran Contra.

      Suderman couldn’t even force himself to outright say Hillary Clinton was lying. Instead he goes with the milquetoast verbiage “She Still Has Trouble With the Truth”.

      1. Reason could call Hillary a corrupt lying bitch whore skank cunt who should be assassinated and you guys would still complain that they were going soft on her.

        1. Reason could call Hillary a corrupt lying bitch whore skank cunt who should be assassinated and you guys would still complain that they were going soft on her.

          Well, sure–it takes a SugarFree installment to truly capture her horribleness.

        2. Pretty much this. For the next several years there’s going to be several commenters here who will be utterly convinced that every singe Reason contributor voted en masse for Hillary because “KOSMOZ”.

          While it’s true that some writers seem to have bad cases of TDS (Suderman and Dalmia being the worst), there’s an awful lot commenters who seem to have RWDS: Reason Writer Derangement Syndrome. Which kind of makes me wonder why they spend so much time commenting here. Either they’re just trolling or they love being miserable and bitching about shit.

          1. Which kind of makes me wonder why they spend so much time commenting here.

            Kochbucks. Duh.

            1. Fair enough. I suppose we’re all getting paid to front different opinions for the vast libertarian conspiracy. That way no one will take us seriously. Now if you don’t mind, I have to go up on a podium and strip down to my skivvies. Again.

          2. they love being miserable and bitching about shit.

            This is why 24 hour news, the internet (other than porn), and talk radio exist. There is a metric shit-ton of money to be made pissing people off. A lot can also be made pissing on people, but that’s another topic.

          3. Shorter Asshole

            You leave Reason alone!!

        3. Reason could call Hillary a corrupt lying bitch whore skank cunt who should be assassinated and you guys would still complain that they were going soft on her.

          So…what you’re saying is, “Reason Commenters Have Trouble With Nature of Clinton-Coverage”?

        4. Going soft on her…

          Who wouldn’t?

          1. Outstanding. ^^^

        5. How about Suderman just tell the truth and call her a liar instead of pulling the “she has problems with the truth” whatever the fuck that means?

          Is the truth too much to ask for?

          1. Is the truth too much to ask for?

            From her? Apparently

          2. You people do realize that this may be a blog, but reason itself is a publication, that it represents outreach and not just insular tongue-bathing for libertarians, and that writers here aspire to be journalists, not just bloggers? You can take issue with the profession if you like, and it deserves having issues taken with, but it’s sound practice to euphemize loaded words. Maintaining journalistic decorum is the least of their problems, well below their rampant leftward bias. You’re bitching out one of the good guys for hewing to a style that won’t get him immediately tuned out by lefties, who need their bubbles pierced. Everyone here knows what he’s alluding to, and there’s plenty of bloggers out there are willing to call Hillary a lying harridan cunt.

            1. Huh. Got a 503 when I tried submitting this one. Oh well, double posted.

          3. “she has problems with the truth” whatever the fuck that means?

            It means she lies. Not that hard to crack.

            Suderman does seem to have a problem really giving it to Clinton most of the time, but it this article, he’s coming out and saying it. Not sure why so many still feel a need to complain.

        6. “Reason could call Hillary a corrupt lying bitch whore skank cunt who should be assassinated and you guys would still complain that they were going soft on her.”

          Has that theory ever been tested? Has Reason actually called her those things?

        7. Reason could call Hillary a corrupt lying bitch whore skank cunt who should be assassinated and you guys would still complain that they were going soft on her.

          Please?
          Can we at least try it?

  14. “Director Comey made the point that the three emails out of the 30,000 did not have the appropriate markings. It was therefore reasonable to conclude that anyone including myself would have not suspected that they were classified.”

    I’m not following this statement.

    Because three of the 30,000 weren’t marked as classified, it was reasonable for her to believe that the 29,997 that were marked properly were NOT classified?

    I don’t get it, but I don’t need to.

    She accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. I don’t need to know anything more. She has disqualified herself. Nothing Trump says can be worse than what Hillary Clinton did.

    It is a progressives religious belief to think that the bad things some people say are worse than the bad things other people do, and I am not a member of that church.

    1. It is a progressives religious belief to think that the bad things some people say are worse than the bad things other people do

      Provided the other people doing the bad things have a D after their names, that is.

      1. I think that progressive religious belief is even apart from that.

        They don’t want you to criticize climate change because that might make people doubt it. If you fly back and forth across the country in a private jet twice a week, that doesn’t really matter–even if you’re a Republican. The important thing is what people say.

        Another example if with homophobia. They don’t care if you support gay marriage or public accommodation of gays anywhere near as much as they care that you never use the word “fag”. Say thew word “fag” in public, and they may try to make you divest the controlling shares in your company or have you fired as CEO. Again, they don’t care if you don’t want the government to do things that discriminate against gays anywhere near as much as they don’t want you to say “fag”.

        Hillary Clinton is acceptable to progressives because she says all the right things. She’d bomb ISIS targets regardless of whether it killed innocent family members, and Barack Obama has actually killed thousands of innocent people and hundreds of innocent children going after ISIS with drone strikes–but that doesn’t matter to progressives anywhere near as much as Trump saying that he would bomb ISIS even if it killed innocent family members.

        Again, in a progressive’s mind, what you say is far more important than what you do. Trump is unacceptable to them because of what he says. Hillary is acceptable because of what she says and in spite of what she does.

        1. Again, in a progressive’s mind, what you say is far more important than what you do.

          So, to pick a random example out of thin air, a progressive is the sort of person who gets really upset if one refers to a vile person as “a cunt”?

          1. My wife is no progressive (she is the rarest of the rare, a dyed in the wool libertarian), but she gets upset if one refers to a vile person as “a cunt.” Which is doubly hilarious because that’s my nickname for her daughter.

            1. A lot of womyn get sand in their snizzes over the use of the word cunt as a pejorative for some reason.

              1. And a lot of old commenters once jumped on my case for making exactly that point.

                tarran was referring to an old thread from eight years ago (or so), and they seem to think I lost that argument and want to remind me of it over and over again.

                I pointed out that calling people like Liz Warren and Hillary Clinton that word doesn’t win us any good will from women, generally, and the people who were doing that never got over being called out for it.

                . . . not that tarran was one of them.

                1. Ken, that was one of the comment dustups that won me over to this site.

                  Forgive me in advance if I, too, like tweaking you aching cunt on this topic. I love you, but that was a funny thread.

                2. But you know we love you, right?

                  1. I get the same kind of reaction in meat space.

                    Yeah, all in good fun.

                    Except when it isn’t.

                    1. It’s always in good fun.

          2. Saying that is worse than doing what exactly?

  15. Now she says that she and CW were talking past each other.
    So she wasn’t lying to him on Sunday, she just wasn’t listening to him.
    All better.

    1. So…she was just spouting off lies arbitrarily?

      I don’t get how this explanation helps. What she said remains a lie, but now she doesn’t pay attention to people she’s talking with and might have Tourette’s

  16. “Clinton is leaning hard on the notion that she could not have reasonably been expected to know that the unmarked emails sent through her system were classified, and, presumably, that she therefore deserves a pass on her behavior. Basically, she says that she made a mistake but that she could not have been expected to act differently given the circumstances.”

    No, Clinton would have us believe that as Secretary of State for 4 years she never once expected to get or send a classified email.

    1. So much this.

      She set up an email arrangement that was completely illegal to use for any kind of classified traffic. As her only email system while SecState.

      So she either didn’t expect to see a single piece of classified info via email while SecState, or she didn’t give shit that she would be violating the law when she did.

      There is no third explanation. And she is the runaway favorite of the Great and the Good for President.

      1. Which is the existence of the server is the violation, exactly how many classified e-mails went on it only quantifies the depth of her arrogance.

  17. She Still Has Trouble With the Truth

    Clinton = Has Trouble With Truth
    Jeffrey Dahmer = Has Diet Issues
    Hiroshima = Problematic Urban Renewal
    Rape of Nanking = Perhaps Excessive Test For Ginsu Knives
    Pol Pot = Had Unconventional Ideas About Fertilizers

    1. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – Envisioned Novel Uses for Aircraft
      Chernobyl – Industrial Mishap
      Sauron – Jewelry Enthusiast
      Al Capone – Legitimate Businessman

      1. Chernobyl wasn’t a mishap?

        1. Given its scale and severity, I thought “mishap” was a silly enough word to carry the joke.

  18. (OT: In my browser, the white space between the post and the comments keeps getting larger. Are the cosmotarians trying to distance themselves from the commentaric?)

    1. Telling us that there are 17 actors who’ve yet to admit they’re gay takes screen space.

  19. I wouldn’t piss, shit, or spit on Hillary Clinton if she were on fire.

    1. I might try to beat the flames out with a baseball bat (at least that’s what I’ll claim to be doing).

      1. I would probably use a butcher knife. To help release liquids from her body to douse the flames.

        1. To any DoJ toadies scanning the commentariat for evidence to convene the next Grand Jury: Just kidding.

  20. “Nobody gives a shit anymore about the truth, whether it’s subjective truth or weasel-worded truth or a half-truth or just a little white lie. it’s just say whatever the hell you want and move on. There’s no longer even any compulsion to defend or explain or put some nuance on your statements – just lie like a rug, a long shag electric pink rug with a dead fucking bloated up hooker laying right there in a pile of blow in the middle of it.” – Bill Belichick, opening day of training camp, every fucking year.

    1. I believe you, but i’m confused as to “Why” coach bill shares that particular post-modern insight?

      1. Chandler Jones and Belichick’s black-eye. CONNECT THE DOTS!!!

  21. Today, Clinton attempted to excuse her claims by saying that “she may have short-circuited” and would attempt to “clarify” further.

    With the rumors recently being circulated, I’m not so sure saying that you “short-circuited” is a really good idea.

    1. Maybe DWS can reboot her hard drive and install a couple of flash updates to her software now that she’s working for the campaign (openly, at least).

      1. Who’s Hillary, she said, and smiled in her special way
        Hillary, she said, you know I love you….

      2. They might want to invest in a professional rather than paying a well-connected friend. I can’t think why, but I get this feeling Democrats have had bad luck with new software rollouts provided by the politically connected.

    2. Either she short-circuited or a memory chip fell out of that hole in her tongue.

    3. It’s Neal Stephenson’s world, we’re just living in it.

  22. Wait, an article critical of Hillary and there’s no mention of Trump?

    Is this really Reason.com?

    1. It is. And of course now thanks to you, Trump is mentioned.

    2. … Your right. They did manage to write an article about Hillary without dedicating 1/3 to a half of the story to Trump. Yay!

  23. Saying Hillary Clinton has trouble with the truth is like saying Bill had trouble with Beatrix getting married.

    1. He overreacted.

  24. To repeat what was said above, just call her a liar. “Has problems with the truth”? Here is what Suderman writes about Trump

    https://reason.com/blog/2016/07…..rages-brok

    Trump’s Week of Lies Outrages and Shady Associations

    Hillary gets up and bald face lies about the multiple felonies she committed but wasn’t prosecuted for and accorded to Suderman “she has problems with the truth”?

    Fuck off Suderman you lying ballless lefty scumbag. What the fuck is your major malfunction? Are you just clinically incapable of being honest? And shame on every single one of his fan boys who keep apologizing for him.

    Did Suderman dream of growing up to be a leftist hack or did it kind of come to him?

    1. Have you ever been around journalism majors?

    2. Damn son, you left a beaded smilie face bruise on that bitche authors’ forehead.

    3. Damn, John. Harsh.

      I think Suderdude’s ok. We all make mistakes.

    4. BURNNNNNN

      John is 100% right, though.

      We have enough corruption in the media (see DWS email to RCP, for example) that we don’t need assholes like Suderman to play along without even being threatened in some way.

      Hillary Clinton is a treasonous sack of shit, a criminal, a reprobate, whose corruption puts many banana republic dictators to shame. If Suderman is going to call Trump those same words based on conjecture, and he’s unwilling to do that with someone who has PROVEN they have those qualities, he is an unprincipled hack who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

  25. They should just do a running article every Thursday or Friday:

    The Week in Trump: Lies and Outrages for [August 5 – 12]

    The Week in Hillary: Lies and Outrages for [August 5 – 12]

  26. Hillary Clinton was on the chopper with Brian Williams.

    1. 1000 US intelligence agency employees punished with spending week on disease, sewage, crime-riddled poverty continent and forced to watch boring summer Olympics.

      1. But it will have Michael Phelps!

    1. But as the [Politifact] chart on the right shows, Hillary is one of the most honest politicians on the national stage. Here’s a similar conclusion from the New York Times.

      WELL I FOR ONE AM CONVINCED.

      1. Politifact is a non-partisan…

        Fact not in evidence.

    2. I am also pleased and gratified to learn that, according to the Chart of Magic, Obama has (almost) never spaketh a nontruth. Like General Washington reborn! Huzzah!

      The media went from being merely “in the tank” a few weeks ago? ….

      …..Into TURBO MAXIMUM-OVERDRIVE SHILL MODE right after the @#(*$@ DNC email thing came out.

      Reuters has had huge headlines every day for a week suggesting that the Trump-Putin Nexus is becoming ever more sinister by the second. The WaPo editorial page is like a Collective Struggle-Session of Trump-Denunciation. My google newsfeed has been “half Kahntroversy” all week long.

      And people wonder why we moan in agony when Reason gets in on the act.

  27. RE: Clinton Email Statement Clarifies That She Still Has Trouble With the Truth

    Damn that truth all to hell!
    Doesn’t it realize it’s impeding the progress of having a true workers paradise (or fascist state if you’re for Trump the Grump).
    Doesn’t it realize it’s making the ruling elites job of enslaving us all more difficult?
    Doesn’t it realize it’s confusing the masses?
    It’s no wonder true totalitarians hate the truth so much.

  28. Meither Clinton has ever had trouble wth the truth. They simply never use it.

  29. alt-text: That oughtta hold the little S.O.B.s

  30. Classified…not classified…

    I thought maintaining a personal server was illegal and so is not archiving all official correspondence?

    I’d be willing to bet she voted in favor of that law, as it was designed to undermine Bush (WMD) and it came about about the time she was a Senator. Be interesting if someone looked into that.

    But I’m sure she didn’t mean it should apply to her.

    1. “But I’m sure she didn’t mean it should apply to her.”

      No politician ever does.

    2. I don’t know why anyone, including Clinton’s critics keep “measuring” how much classified material went through the server. Like as long as the meter didn’t touch the red, she’s ok.

      The very placement of the server with the explicit purpose of keeping her State dept communications sec… fuck it. At this point, if people haven’t gotten it, they won’t.

  31. Has the FBI released or at least described the contents of the thirty thousand some odd emails they managed to recover Hillary and her team attempted to hide from the public? I know we’ve heard all about the numerous work emails and classified emails she and her team expunged and lied about, but the bulk of it seems to have escaped notice. Was she conducting foundation business she didn’t want nosy voters knowing about? Did she cover up her tracks in hopes that she’d never have to answer to the public?

    Why are we still discussing her never-to-be-punished felonies wrt classified emails when it’s obvious she sought to hide shady dealings from the public?

    1. It sounds like Wikileaks might have access to the deleted e-mails. We can only hope.

        1. Assuming Hillary treats Assange as well as she does Snowden, he would be an idiot not to loathe that vile beast.

          1. Julian, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

        2. Bill Maher interviewed him Friday. Every time Assange explained what a piece of crap Hillary is, Maher whined “but….but….TRUMP SUCKS!”. It really showcased what a progtard shill Maher has become.

  32. “Has trouble with the truth”?

    Not being able to recognize it is certainly ‘trouble’; she, Bubba and Obo make a great pair (and that’s the truth!)

  33. Ugh, another Trump hit piece. Cosmo Cuck Fag Suderman is SO in bed with Hitlary. Reason sucks!

      1. Damn, you’re right. I was trying to light the SIV signal and ask him if he still thinks Michelle Bachmann would be a great president.

        1. Just one night without…I beg you.

  34. I have recently experienced my own personal “Road to Damascus Moment”

    I’m now convinced that Hillary Clinton should be the next president of the United States.

    Not because Trump is worse, or because of anything to do with him at all, really. .

    But because I now wish her upon the world.

    1. the progtards never learn. Look at detroit, baltimore, Venezuela, the USSR. When their shit blows up, it’s always someone else’s fault.

      Even now, the problems in our economy are not du to entirely forseeable consequences of government policies and programs — it’s *capitalism*, *greed*, *the rich*, etc

      1. the progtards never learn

        I don’t care. Give her everything she pretends to want to deliver. another firearms ban. total control of SCOTUS. Reverse Citizens United and create federal department of speech permission. free college for all the kiddies. pile it all on. MORE.

        1. I don’t like the cut of your jib.

          1. Like the film “Touching The Void”…. America has fallen into a deep shit-crevasse. And the only way out is actually going to involve going Deeper.

            1. Stare not into the deep shit crevasse, lest Hillary push you in from behind.

    2. Seriously. Your little fantasy has to violate the 8th Amendment. That’s not only cruel but unusual too.

    3. Seriously. Your little fantasy has to violate the 8th Amendment. That’s both cruel and unusual.

      1. The squirrelz clearly agree.

  35. Smart Power

    The Russian government is trying to poach Syrian rebels trained and equipped by the United States for the war against ISIS, according to the political leader of a prominent Pentagon-backed brigade in Aleppo?and the rebels are strongly considering Russia’s offer.
    In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Mustafa Sejry of the Liwa al-Mu’tasim Brigade said that he met personally with a Moscow representative the Syrian-Turkish border 10 days ago and was offered “unlimited amounts of weaponry and close air support” to fight both ISIS and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, the rebranded al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, in exchange for the Mu’tasim Brigade’s transfer of loyalties from Washington to Moscow.

    1. I don’t see this ending badly at all.

    2. the rebels are strongly considering Russia’s offer.

      This sounds a bit like a pro athlete near the end of their contract saying, “I’ve been getting some really attractive interest from [insert opposing franchise] and really think it might be a great time for a move”… right before going into negotiations.

      The part that sounds iffy is the whole, “unlimited close air-support” to fight ISIS. Russia doesn’t have unlimited support, and can’t actually control the battle-space. and they don’t care about ISIS as much as keeping the current syrian power-structure intact.

      Siding with russia means that they’d have to ‘stop’ fighting the Syrian govt;

      and as soon as they’d mopped up ISIS, Russia would turn their unlimited close air support right around and target *them*

      Weiss tends to know his Syria-stuff pretty well, but sometimes lately he gets a little kooky.

      Also – for whatever reason, the pro-Russian, Anti-Semitic internet? considers him to be like JewCuck#1 or something. Every Youtube video he appears in has like 1000 horrifying comments about him and how he’s like the secret agent for Mossad convincing the US to go to war with Russia.

      i feel bad for him because he’s a smart guy but he’s only got one subject to be obsessed about and i think he might be over-invested.

      1. Siding with russia means that they’d have to ‘stop’ fighting the Syrian govt;

        Maybe, or maybe the Russians have decided Assad has become too much of a liability moving forward. I’m not sure I buy the totality of Weiss’s point, but it’s a bad sign for our “train the moderate rebels” program if they are entertaining such a offer. It’s kind of hard to believe anything the US does in that part of the world is done in good faith. We have a nasty habit of hanging people out to dry.

  36. You people do realize that this may be a blog, but reason itself is a publication, that it represents outreach and not just insular tongue-bathing for libertarians, and that writers here aspire to be journalists, not just bloggers? You can take issue with the profession if you like, and it deserves having issues taken with, but it’s sound practice to euphemize loaded words. Maintaining journalistic decorum is the least of their problems, well below their rampant leftward bias. You’re bitching out one of the good guys, one with whom you have disagreements but who isn’t a raging progressive shill, for hewing to a style that won’t get him immediately tuned out by lefties, who need their bubbles pierced. Everyone here knows what he’s alluding to, and there’s plenty of bloggers out there are willing to call Hillary a lying harridan cunt.

    1. Great point.
      That being said, I thought Suderman was found Guilty in the court of John and SIV for being a progressive shill?

      1. One side of the aisle takes serious umbrage with any criticism of the God King or the Her Ascendant, and it’s their pervasive influence that journalism has reached its nadir. They own the publications, they control the universities, they set the standards, and they corral and oust offenders. There is every reason to condemn modern journalism for its bias and vapidity. But that’s really no excuse to go after writers who may want to enjoy a career outside of writing for The Daily Beast or The Blaze. I enjoy e.g. Ace of Spades very much for Ace’s trenchant insights and his willingness to put in writing exactly what is on his mind. But I can’t link an AoS post to a friend and expect that when they figure out what “TFG” means, they’ll continue reading to the bottom of the post. He writes for an exclusive audience. Not everyone wants to or can afford to do that.

        1. Damnit, I meant “Her Apparent.”

        2. Ace is a mixed bag, but his Kaboom post might be one of the funniest things I’ve read of the internet.


          1. Nothing says “part of a balanced breakfast”
            like the Faces of the Unquiet Dead.
            The famous “death mask imagery” of Kaboom
            teaches children that aspiration is vanity
            and all dreams are lies

            This guy would really understand my newfound support for Hillary.

          2. That was superb. You’ve read the infamous skandis piece?

            1. Missed that one.

                1. Pretty good one there.

          3. “Kaboom”

            LOL. You have to respect the dedication he put into that article:)

        3. Right, and we shouldn’t hold police accountable who won’t testify against their murdering brethren, because they want to have a job and all.

          You realize that is the equivalent, don’t you?

          1. It really isn’t. This article calls her on her lies. What fucking difference does it make if the word “lie”is used?

    2. “”You people””

      WHO U CALLING

      also, what does ‘harridan’ mean? its something really bad, right?


      1. noun
        1.
        a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.
        1690-1700; perhaps alteration of French haridelle thin, worn-out horse, large, gaunt woman (compared with the initial element of haras stud farm, though derivation is unclear)

        1. Hillary ain’t in NO way tired!

          1. would reckon all a dat lyin’ would wear huh old bones down sumpin’ fierce like.

      2. It means a termagant.

        1. via Old French from Italian Trivigante, taken to be from Latin tri- ‘three’ + vagant- ‘wandering,’ and to refer to the moon “wandering” between heaven, earth, and hell under the three names Selene, Artemis, and Persephone.

          So, she’s something between an old starving horse, and a lonely, moaning ghost-god.

          I still think “Cunt” is probably clearer.

          1. It is. All that talking like a fag stuff is totally superfluous.

          2. Can’t we all just agree that it would be most good to burn Cankles alive? Most good, indeed!

    3. that writers here aspire to be journalists, not just bloggers

      We’re using that in the modern sense of “Democrat propagandists”, right? So why shouldn’t despise them again?

    4. Well said. Here someone calls her explicitly on her lies (even if th eword “lie” isn’t used) and certain people can’t think of anything to say but to bitch some more about his choice of words.
      Sure, I’d enjoy hearing Hillary called more harsh things, but the point of these articles isn’t to make me happy.

  37. Suderman has done a lot of excellent wonky spadework on stuff like Obamacare. But he has pretty much made himself reason‘s poster boy for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    1. I thought that honor went to Chapman?

  38. So basically, Hillary Clinton is trying to cover up a lie with another lie, which will lead to another lie to cover up the lie that attempted to cover up the first lie.

    In other news, water is wet, grass is green, ice is cold, fire is hot…

    1. is water ‘wet’?

    2. I imagine that she’ll get to stop it before too much longer. The media will largely make sure of that. I’m surprised that it’s even lasted this long, actually.

    3. Yeah, she can’t even keep all of her lies straight.

  39. Beer is better than Hillary Clinton. Old Perseverance

    1. Been having sciatic nerve pain out of nowhere today. Thinking I might knock a couple back and break my dry spell. Well, that and for another terrible week of politics. But since I’m not keen on bleach I guess I’ll stick with ethanol.

      1. I hate dry spells. Whether they involve women or booze.

        Second beer. On that note, even though I think he was not a bastard and was a cool guy, RIP Popcorn Sutton

        Third beer of the night.

      2. Stretching exercises helped me a great deal. I was unable to leave my home for a month until I got involved in exercising.

      3. I am sorry about the pain that has struck you out of nowhere. I hope the booze helps.

    2. 90? Ain’t nobody got time for that shit!

      1. Time is an illusion.

    3. Fermented camel piss is better than Hillary Clinton.

      1. I’m pretty down as it is. Don’t make it worse.

  40. Oh, what the fuck!.

    According to the lawsuit, Wilson was paid a base wage of $53.22 an hour, plus a $75 car allowance. He also received time-and-a-half for working more than eight hours, and double time for working past 12 hours. Wilson complains that he was not paid for a 30 minute meal break, “despite the fact that no such meal break was taken.”

    1. What a pussy

    2. “Veep” was produced in Maryland for its initial four seasons, but was lured to California with a $6.6 million tax credit last year.

      Suckers.

    3. UGH. Punching down! Why don’t the rich pay their fair share HUH?

    4. Since when are meal breaks paid?

  41. Johnson is wrong on this issue I agree, WRONG, but this isn’t some mass pogram against Christians. I think socons would rather have the entire economy wiped out than risk one person baking a fucking cake. It’s one issue. It’s not like we live in some freedom of association utopia that Johnson is going to destroy. If we had freedom of association now then I might understand the obsession a little more. But we don’t.Is Trump or Hillary really going to be any better on this issue?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2598672

    1. Uh, yes. Duh? What about MAGA don’t you understand?

      1. I don’t want to have to grate. Pre-shreaded cheese is my right is an ‘murican.

    2. But the candidate seems intent on reducing his party’s platform to a sort of warmed-over liberal Republicanism with the eclectic add-on of support for drug legalization.

      Ouch.

      1. “warmed-over liberal Republicanism”

        Not totally unfounded but not the whole story either.

    3. YES. HILLARY WILL BRING TOTAL CLARITY. STOP FIGHTING

    4. I am reading this piece. I think the author correctly identifies the problem with GayJay.

      However, i think it is also important to read the sidebar piece =

      Half naked girls partake in erotic car washing contest (VID)

      1. Yeah, I’ll bookmark that for later.

    5. Most conservatives* are somewhat ready for a genuinely anti-war, pro-criminal-justice reform, leave-us-alone type of ideology. The mess created by the Iraq and Libyan wars have made many on the Right rethink the wisdom or at least the extent of recent interventionist foreign policy.

      One would think the Libertarian Party would be a natural second home for conservatives who feel beset by government-imposed pressure to accept and pay for what they believe immoral. The libertarian philosophy of “live-and-let-live” is, at least in theory, tolerant of alternative lifestyles, such as that of [homeschooling] Christian parents…. Or those in the wedding industry who believe they should have a choice in service contracts based on their personal moral values…

      The Libertarian Party had a chance of outperforming during this election. But it is blowing its chances. It didn’t need to change but to stick to its principles, and quite a few disaffected conservatives would have found it an acceptable home. But, given what Johnson is offering, why would conservative Republicans defect? They already have a liberal Republican at the top of their own party.

      Its a very simple point.

      You have 1) active social-conservatism, 2) active social-liberalism, and 3) passive libertarian-pluralism – which defends people’s liberty to live how they see fit.

      GJ (?) are abandoning that latter idea, thinking it will help the ‘party’.

      1. *footnotes –
        1) I’m not sure the guy’s claim that “Most conservatives” are ready for an anti-war, pro-choice, justice-reform candidate is actually *true*. I’d need to see a lot of complementary data to really be convinced.

        2) I think there are fundamental problems with the Libertarian conception of social-liberalism and with the “leftist” one. And its in that “Active vs. passive” distinction. The issue is that progressive want to use politics to SHAPE culture. Libertarians want to get govt out of the “Culture Business” entirely. Trying to find common ground with leftists on social issues is, in my view, doomed.

        some could argue the same with the conservative right. But i think it ignores the difference between “disagreeing” and “agreeing to disagree”. The progressive-left wants to eliminate people who think differently. The socon right wants to be left alone.

        sure, its all debatable, but i think thats the nut of the above-writer’s point which i think he’s correct about

        1. The challenge Libertarians (and any small govt advocates) face is that they really don’t want to be in govt.
          It’s hard to motivate people who want govt to leave them alone to be part of govt, much less to get like-minded people to the polls to vote for them.

      2. It’s not an easy sell for a lot of people, especially in today’s environment, even though today with social media, society has more power to put pressure on discrimination without government involvement. FOA needs to be separated from religion and sold along the lines of freedom of speech. Just because you don’t like someones words or there decision to not associate themselves with certain people or circumstances doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

        1. And just because you make it legal doesn’t mean you condone how everyone uses it. You can’t take away people’s right to be an asshole. Everyone is an asshole. There are plenty of situations orher than outright discrimination and outsude of religion where FOA is applicable. People need to be shown the light. Johnson can’t do it but maybe the next Libertarian can.

          1. Doesn’t need to be godwined either. Look at Black only meetings for BLM on campuses. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to do it. That’s Freedom of Association. Back in the early 80’s, I worked in a Black neighborhood. Got to know the bar owner next door. Me and some other white guys went over after work one Friday to shoot pool. About the time the sun started going down, the owner came over and said you boys are going to have to leave. We knew why and he had every right to protect his property from a potential problem. That’s Freedom of Association.

            1. the owner came over and said you boys are going to have to leave.

              Amen.

              I also was once asked to leave a lesbo bar after i’d just been paid to DJ there. I spent ~2hrs afterward drinking with some friends and the bartender was like, “dear heteros = wrap it up”.

              the hetero girls we were with got snippy and when i defended their right to kick us out, my own GF at the time said, “this is the only part of his ‘libertarianism’ he’s actually right about'” – which i thought was funny. But, the point was that most people can be convinced of free association when its put in the right context; e.g. “live and LET live” Progs can’t “let” shit.

              1. I wonder if that same bartender has the same view toward the bakers, florists, photogs, etc.

                1. I can assure you she doesn’t/didn’t, and that the rationale is “straights have the whole world; queers live in the shadows, you can’t deny us our space, ergo make me my shit you hatemonger”

          2. I agree with everything you’ve said in general

            I disagree with some other people who’ve commented on GayJay’s Nazi-Cake conceptions, and claimed “it doesn’t matter'” or that its “Low priority” or that its a “losing battle”.

            Hugh in particular the other day said some very stupid shit about how the whole “Public Accommodation” concepts are a given at this point and there’s no point trying to fight it…. (yet wouldn’t bite when pointed out that Title IX is exactly one of those concepts and is very-fightable)…

            I really think its central to future politics = and that ‘getting govt out of people’s lives’ is actually going to be a key important differentiator.

            This whole “Safe Spaces” nonsense is basically progressive-‘thought control’ in juvenile form. and its only going to grow and infect other areas of life. Its already doing it. e..g. NYC’s new law which punishes people for using incorrect pronouns? you may laugh, but its only going to spread, and its not going to stop w/ ‘trannies’.

            And there are a lot of people who object vehemently to this stuff who have no particular political philosophy – they just know that no one should be telling them what’s OK & Not Okay.

            Yet instead of libertarians standing up to fight this stuff and show the kiddies who’s on Team Freedom…. we’ve got Fruit Sushi and Gay Jay. Not a good look, and its not winning the future.

            1. Yeah, I think we can win on at least some of this stuff although certainly not with the current crop. They are good on other issues though and if they can get people thinking in that direction great. There is a mental image of whites only signs in a lot of peoples minds that is very strong. They picture some black kid walking up to a store with his or her parents and seeing that. That is a powerful image. Of course the market and social pressure would take care of that in the unlikely chance that would occur today. I think I’ve mention bigot map app before:) Johnson either doesn’t want to take that on or he really doesn’t believe in FOA. I’m not sure which. The next generation, even with their sjw stuff is less weighed down by the past and maybe can get past that.

        2. A tweak, if I might, but:

          FOA needs to be separated from religion

          It can’t be, really, as it’s part of the foundation of “Freedom of Religion”.

          However, I think this:

          FOA needs to be separated from religion and sold along the lines of freedom of speech more than freedom of religion.

          is spot on. But, that’s my opinion.

          1. Well certainly you can have FOA as part of FOR. But you can also have it stand on its own. Atheist have as much right to FOA as any religious group. Maybe I don’t want to bake a gay wedding cake because I’m just an asshole, not because if any religious belief. I should have that right. I don’t need a reason. I don’t like your shirt or the way you talk, therefore I’m not going to sell you sonething I put my heart into making.

            1. Probably wouldn’t be in business long but that’s my problem.

    6. Uh, it’s a stupid article.

      Yet now, when libertarian ideas might stand a fair chance in a presidential race between two unattractive major-party candidates, libertarians have nominated a candidate who isn’t just not a purist; he isn’t much of a libertarian at all.

      Sure, unlike pristine past candidates like Bob Barr and… Gary Johnson?

    7. “It’s one issue.”

      So is Bill Weld’s proposal to take away 2nd Amendment rights without due process.

      It’s just this one issue. Just one article of the Bill of Rights. I’m sure they’ll stop there and remain strong on all the other issues.

      You’re not one of those purity-testers, are you?

  42. Will it even be Hillary’s presidency? Or will it be Bill’s third term?

    1. I would rather a third term from him than a single one from her any day.

      1. As the man, wouldn’t he naturally be in charge.

        1. ONE WOULD HOPE!

        2. I can’t picture the two of them in the same room long enough for one to take charge over the other.

      2. Seconded.

        Barak Obama makes me miss George W. Bush. George W. Bush made me miss Bill Clinton. I fucking hated Bill Clinton.

    2. It will be George H.W. Bush’s 8th term.

      1. Lol.

  43. Standing next to me on the train right now is an Asian gal that is on the polar opposite end of the attractiveness scale from Hillary.

    1. Say hi.

      1. Tight brue jeans. Straight, long black hair. Dark pink lipstick and 3 in heels. She keeps running her fingers through her hair. Maaan.

        1. Nice:) I’m picturing it:)

            1. Trying to cleanse the image of the Cackler out of people’s minds. It’s a PSA.

        2. Brue jeans? Racist!

          1. How can he take an upskirt photo if she’s wearing blue jeans?

            …is the kind of lewd, filthy joke that you shouldn’t even consider telling.

    2. Get that face of yours all up into her ham sandwich!

    3. Get her number.

    4. I thought Hungarian gals usually sat next to you on the train in Japan?

      1. Hot Hungarian Women

        I had two dates with a hot Hungarian woman. It went nowhere because I am a dumbass.

        1. Don’t know about Zika, but that will cure Yellow fever.

  44. O/T, but this as good a place as any:

    I’ve been noticing a lot of articles online regarding the F-35 recently, and they all seem to be touting how awesome it is. This seems very strange to me, considering it’s been a giant facepalm since it was rolled out to the services a few years ago, and was nothing but a boondoggle.

    Anyone know what’s going on? Did it get a major overhaul? Were the earlier reports all from haters, and the truth is just now catching up? Why now?

    1. Yeah, I saw this the other day. Pretty sure I need one.

      http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli…..-vstan.cnn

    2. I have no idea, but even if its better than the X-wing fighter and will successfully repel an alien invasion….

      …it costs too damn much and we don’t need fancy-fighters like we need a fucking *kick in the head* to get out of the ME.

    3. Saw another article as well. There’s a 35A and a 35B. I think the B is the vertical takeoff. Sounded like the A was ready, not sure about the B. In 20 years we’ll be selling them to future enemies.

      1. You may be right about the A vs B. I’ve been under the impression that it was just a bad design, regardless of the take-off scheme.

    4. It’s all odd to me, because nothing in the press was positive about the plane once it hit flight-test time. I mean, everything said about it was negative, and we had a huge goose egg on our hands, vis-a-vis the F-35.

      Now, for about the last 2 months, it’s been nothing but a miracle jet, and everything is just peachy. A true pendulum swing.

      Is this good press bought, or has all dissent been quashed? It’s just very weird.

  45. Our only salvation at this point is that Hillary becomes so saturated with pure evil that she spontaneously combusts on the debate stage.

    Trump: Crooked Hillary, Crooked Hillary, she’s lying!

    Hillary: *clears throat* … *cough cough*… I’m the only one who has a … 500 trillion dollar plan to … *catches on fire* … *shreeking*

    Trump: What just happened? Is she on fire? Is grandma on fire? She can’t even not catch on fire! How can she be president! Does this mean I won?

    1. Uh, it doesn’t work like that — she discharges the excess evil through voodoo dolls to eliminate her enemies.

    2. “Trump: What just happened? Is she on fire? Is grandma on fire? She can’t even not catch on fire! How can she be president! Does this mean I won?”

      From the way he comes across in images and the printed word, that’s exactly as I would imagine the reaction. Amazingly (to me) when I heard him speak with the golf announcer several weeks back, he actually sounded thoughtful. Maybe his handlers tranked him.

  46. Did reason cover this? People endorsing things for money? Shocking, I tell ya.

    1. “Consumers have the right to know if reviewers are providing their own opinions or paid sales pitches,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies like Warner Brothers need to be straight with consumers in their online ad campaigns.”

    2. They are ‘cracking down’, apparently. The little tyrants on Hacker News were creaming themselves about it today.

      1. Did they go after Speilberg for not making it explicit that ET really didn’t like Reese’s Pieces? The whole campaign is so insane that it’s hard not to believe something nefarious is going on.

        1. And what about George Foreman?!

    3. Under a proposed FTC order announced today, Warner Bros. is barred from failing to make such disclosures in the future and cannot misrepresent that sponsored content, including gameplay videos, are the objective, independent opinions of video game enthusiasts or influencers.

      “Consumers have the right to know if reviewers are providing their own opinions or paid sales pitches,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies like Warner Brothers need to be straight with consumers in their online ad campaigns.”

      GAMERGATE WON

      1. Doubt it. They will use this to punish enemies and raise revenue. This whole thing stinks of selective enforcement in the making.

        1. Damn. My sarc detector doesn’t work before noon.

    4. “Warner Bros. paid “online influencers,” including PewDiePie, to post positive videos of Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor.”

      No, not PewDiePie! Anyone but…wait, who’s PewDiePie?

      1. He’s a swedish guy who makes millions of dollars a year playing videogames and making goofy noises… which apparently entertains 12yr olds, who a lot of advertisers want to impress, apparently.

        1. not even my 12yo cousin watches him, he’s more into markiplier. pewdiepie is more for 8yos.

          1. Markiplier is an awesome person. I like a lot of his scary-game vids.

            My favorite LPer is a little-known Brit who goes by Helloween4545. I found him by accident right after he started. Smart, funny guy.

            1. The first big letsplayer I got into, don’t know how, was Cryaotic, don’t remember how. The small downside was he specializes in longer content (half hour to two and a half hour) videos, so he doesn’t make nearly as many videos, and sometimes I’m just not in the mood for a movie length lets play.
              So I started to expand out to others. I agree on Markiplier being great. I’ll have to check out this Helloween4545.

              Do you have a series of his you’d suggest I start out with?

        2. Is that the career-path for all the Correct the Record trolls currently honing their craft or will Hillary give them jobs as part of a new cabinet-level office of Internet Truth and Security?

    5. It seems like it should be as easy to get around as pay for play is on the radio. Limp Bizkit got around the pay for play rules by simply having a quick disclaimer before their songs saying that it was a paid commercial, then playing the full song.

  47. Poverty? Corruption? Raw Sewage? Hey, look over there!

    “Rio welcomes world with sultry music, plea for conservation”
    […]
    “With fireworks forming the word “Rio” in the sky, performers decked in silver and sweet, sultry music, Rio de Janiero is welcoming the world to the first Olympic Games in South America with a message: Let’s take better care of our planet.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor…..124065.php

    1. And if there’s anyone I look to for environmental leadership it’s Brazil.

      1. If you can’t trust Brazil, who can you trust?

    2. Because when I think of keeping things all natural, ‘Brazilian’ is the first word that comes to mind.

  48. I watching the opening ceremonies with my kids.

    I think this will be the last olympics as we know it. This looks like the end. No more.

  49. Ha ha! They have Zika marching around!

    1. And flying around!

  50. (be sure to read the final paragraph)

    “Notorious Chinatown gangster known as ‘Shrimp Boy’ gets life in prison following organized crime crackdown that also brought down a senator

    “Raymond ‘Shrimp Boy’ Chow, 56, was convicted of all 162 counts against him by a San Francisco jury earlier this year

    “Charges include murder, racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder

    “Today he was handed two life sentences and another twenty years in jail

    “Chow, born in Hong Kong in 1960, showed no reaction as the verdicts were announced and stared straight ahead in the court room

    “He came to the US at 16 and was reportedly nicknamed ‘Shrimp Boy’ by his grandmother due to his small stature

    “His gang lured former state Sen Leland Yee into its clutches through money and campaign contributions in exchange for legislative help”

  51. Giselle loves Brazil so much that she moved away.

    1. Who cares, she’s ugly.

  52. More DNC information to come, says WikiLeaks founder

    Woodruff: “But bottom line, why shouldn’t the American people look at this and say ‘This is an effort to undermine the Clinton campaign — the Democratic Party’?”

    Assange: “Well, I can reveal to you the source of the information today: the source of the information is the Democratic Party, it is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it is the chief financial officer, it is the communications officer, Luis Miranda, in fact, all these people who have just been fired.”

    Woodruff: “Well, look, I want to give you a chance to say what you believe, Julian Assange, but Wikileaks, we know, argues for transparency as part of your very mission, and so, isn’t this an extension of that transparency, about where this explosive material came from, how it fell into your hands?”

    Assange: “As I said, we know exactly where it came from, it came from — the material that was just published — we know exactly where it came from, it came from the DNC.”

    That valid point aside, just how is it that she goes into this interview without understanding that one of the core principles for wikileaks is supposed to be protection of the intermediate source, in the case that one is even known.

    1. A leaker may have hostile intentions toward the target of the leak? But Wikileaks protects the identity of the leaker anyway? This is unprecedented in journalism!

    2. shorter = we care nothing about political corruption, and everything about how we can try and damage you/use you to our advantage by suggesting links to russians.

      AS THOUGH THAT MATTERS.

      Because what “damage” are the “russians” causing exactly? A 10+ bump in the polls since the DNC emails were released? CLEARLY THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INVESTIGATING

    3. You’ll notice how after the DNC leaks nobody even bothered to try to go with the, “Nope. Never happened. They’re just making shit up,” defense. Which should have been a no brainer for an anonymously sourced leak.

    4. “Woodruff: “But bottom line, why shouldn’t the American people look at this and say ‘This is an effort to undermine the Clinton campaign — the Democratic Party’?””

      Assumptions:
      1) What ever is released is word-for-word, un-edited email com.
      2) Woodruff presumes it to be damaging to the Ds.
      #2 is a non-sequitur unless Woodruff is privy to something or perhaps protective of a certain bias?
      Regardless, that hag is NOT suffering from over-exposure of her nefarious dealings, but a certain under-exposure of same; the content of that server should be public record by now, including her dealings regarding fund-raising for her election campaign (aka “The Clinton Foundation”). What did she sell to whom for what quid pro quo?

      1. exactly – if its “damaging'” its because they were engaged in MISCONDUCT

        Its not like “irrelevant/personal material” is being used to “undermine” the DNC. Like, “Oh, hillary had an affair while in the white house”, or “her dad was a rapist”, or one of her employees had a drinking problem or whatever.

        Its evidence that Hillary & the DNC collaborated to undermine her sole competition, Bernie Sanders = whose supporters she’s RELYING ENTIRELY ON for victory. Which disenfranchised voters, and involved collusion from ostensibly ‘independent’ media outlets like CNN, others.

        Fuck judy woodruff and everone in the media as well. they are all fucking rotten.

        Which is why i want Hillary to win now. GIVE IT TO THEM.

        1. Ideological blind spots are just like ocular ones — they cause you to walk right into things.

        2. “exactly – if its “damaging'” its because they were engaged in MISCONDUCT”
          Woodruff as much as admits that; what sort of PR hack must you be to do so? Do Shrill fan-boys presume that anything SHE hasn’t released must be damaging?
          If so, doesn’t that raise some questions?

          “Which is why i want Hillary to win now. GIVE IT TO THEM.”
          I’m not yet convinced.

          1. I’ll convince you =

            the only way anyone is going to recognize the problem is if more people feel the pain.

            Hillary will be a bountiful font of pain.

            1. The worse the better, tovarish?

            2. G, I look at Venezuela and I am not convinced; there are people wiping the shit off their asses with their bare hands and still presuming that Chavez and Maduro just haven’t done what they could.
              And I have met plenty of US citizens who show no better grasp of reality.

              1. Just had similar conversation with my daughter. My granddaughter is about to start her homeschooling. There’s no way as long as I’m alive that any grandchild of mine will attend a shit public school. My daughter mentioned that they want to eliminate history. I told her that’s because they don’t want kids to know that communism doesn’t work and results in the death of millions of innocent people.

                But unfortunately, most of our comrades here in the USA can’t wait for their turn in the slaughter line.

              2. I wouldn’t think it was necessary to point out that the US isn’t Venezuela.

                and the people who i think need to feel pain may not be the ‘tards, so much as the people who’ve otherwise hitherto ignored libertarian issues. Including @*#&@ gay-jay and those fools. everyone deserves hillary now. i don’t expect most lefties to change, but there are young people who realize these people are con-artists and i think they should suffer too for their complacency. and remember what it costs them.

                1. A bigger more organized Venezuela up north == USSR. IOW, a more brutal regime that has more people to torture and kill with greater efficiency.

                2. “I wouldn’t think it was necessary to point out that the US isn’t Venezuela.”
                  Don’t do that; not worthy…

                  “and the people who i think need to feel pain may not be the ‘tards, so much as the people who’ve otherwise hitherto ignored libertarian issues. Including @*#&@ gay-jay and those fools.”
                  Not sure what mean.

                  “everyone deserves hillary now. i don’t expect most lefties to change, but there are young people who realize these people are con-artists and i think they should suffer too for their complacency. and remember what it costs them.”
                  Like the populist V’s, I’m not sure they’ll blame Shrill et al, rather than BUUUUUUUSH!
                  When and if ‘rent-control’ ends in SF, the rents are gonna skyrocket, since (similar to the mortgage market in ’08) the rental market has been so distorted by ‘rent control’ it can’t do otherwise. And, since it’s SF, it may not recover, since the proggie gov’t can always re-institute ‘rent-control’, meaning no sane developer would ever chance the prospect.
                  Point being, you can fuck an economy such that it is FUBAR. I’m sure Shrill can well do that.

        3. I hadn’t realized how in the tank woodruff was until this election. maybe she did a better job concealing it before or most likely I just wasn’t paying enough attention. gwen at least outed herself by writing a book

          Appeasement rarely leads to happy outcomes, but that might be an optimistic spin on events. They’ll be taking it whether we give it go them or not.

      2. But bottom line, why shouldn’t the American people look at this and say ‘This is an effort to undermine the Clinton campaign — the Democratic Party’?””

        When Abu Gharib abuses were exposed – was that an effort to damage the American War Effort in Iraq?
        When CIA black-sites & torture was exposed – was that an effort to undermine the War on Terror?
        When Dan Rather pumped a story about Bush’s service the national guard which turned out to be falsified – was that because he was motivated to damage the “Republican Party”?

        Suddenly they want to shoot the messenger. I WONDER WHY?

  53. OT just getting done watching Sonisphere 2014 on MTV Live and its got me pumped up. Heading out to Stillwaters deep behind the Oranga Curtanga. Live music on a Friday night and let the alcohol flow! Don’t get to caught up in the Trump/Clinton derp fellow Reasonoids! Back away from the keyboards and go live life!

    1. Dffrnt strokes…
      I got two new product designs I’m working on and new ‘tools’ come Monday to prototype them. Neither Trump nor Shrill can stop that.

  54. Brazil did an extremely impressive opening Olympics ceremony. I knew they would, no surprise. No one puts on a show like they do.

    1. Were there hot women involved? I don’t watch TV and don’t know what they showed during the ceremony. I’m a little too busy with work stuff to look up the ceremonies on youtube.

      1. “I don’t watch TV”

        I bet you don’t even *own* a TV, amirite?

      2. It was Brazil, there were women. I’d suggest you check out the 23 year old pop singer in the black outfit, I can’t remember her name, but she’s especially hot. I’d ask my wife, but she’s ask me why I’m asking. Then there was samba. Nuff said. You’re too busy with work at 1am EST? You need to chill bro.

        1. Wife said they call her ‘Anita’.

        2. Yes, I was busy with work at 1 AM EST. You are right, I need to chill.

  55. It’s Too Early for Liberals to Gloat About Trump

    Trump could calm down, Hillary could stumble, and who knows what nasty surprise Putin could uncork in October.

    Beware Putin’s Red October Surprise! So, that’s the intro, but here’s the fun part; in the first paragraph we are told:

    And as for Donald Trump, they haven’t invented a word for how bad his week has been. And that was before we learned he’s married to an illegal immigrant.

    If you think that inaccurate, well, so does the author, as we find in the third-to-last paragraph:

    I’ll be watching with interest to see what the Clinton people do with this Melania-immigration story (if you haven’t read it, the gist is that she may have been here in 1995 performing work as a model on a visa that didn’t allow her to work).

    I don’t even know what you call that.

    1. she may have been here in 1995 performing work as a model on a visa that didn’t allow her to work

      The horror.

      It would have been so much better if she came here to get welfare and then the Messiah granted her citizenship on the condition she vote Democrat forever.

      1. I’d like to see some photographic evidence of this “work”…oh, there it is…

    2. I don’t even know what you call that.

      KHANGATE x1000

      MELANIAGATE will dominate the headlines for at least a week. they do this shit so no progs will think about how horrible hillary’s track-record is, or that she conspired to torpedo the Bern with her establishment peers.

      1. She tried to apply penicillin to those who were feeling the Bern.

    3. Underprivileged immigrant, a woman no less, finds success in part through the empowerment of the artistic expression of her own form, with which she and her family are completely comfortable.

      She is then slut-shamed, furrener-shamed, and wearing a white dress is proof of racism. Rising above some very humble roots to deliver an address to a national, televised audience in a language other than her native tongue, the use of any common phrase that has been used once before by a Democrat is labeled plagiarism in scandalized tones by those who ought to know what plagiarism really is.

      I don’t even know what you call that.

      I call it par for the course. In my experience (albeit limited; I haven’t met everyone in the world yet) I have never had so much trouble having my voice heard as a woman in a group of conservative southern male rednecks in the restaurant industry as I did among progressive educated leftist Occupiers.

      One of these days, when I feel like it, I shall regale y’all with stories of the number of times an Occupier threatened physical violence with someone they counted among their number, in order to accomplish a personal goal.

    4. Clearly worse than Obama’s grandma.

  56. +301, you bunch of old geezers.

  57. Roll up the sidewalks. The Geritol is all gone and the H&R geezer brigade are done.

    1. I didn’t actually become old until two hours ago, when I found out that there was a mutimillionare named PewDiePie with lots of popular videos, and whose existence I had not previously suspected.

      1. Is he the Youtube gaming hero who will finally out derp Total Biscuit and Angry Joe? And have even more 6 year old fans?

    2. We just need some Agile Cyborg.

  58. So what’s the deal with “Hillary having a seizure on camera” thing? People here have been talking about her tongue and there have been rumors of ill health. And haven’t people pretty much admitted that Bill isn’t too there anymore thanks to a heart issue?

    1. People here have been talking about her tongue

      Ewwww!

  59. I’m afraid to say I feel similar to GILMORE’s “Hillary is the POTUS We Deserve”. After all it’s not like Trump or any Sensible Republican or even Gary Johnson (as he and Weld are determined to turn the LP into a moderate centrist party) will be able to reverse the damage. Problem is things can get a lot worse and I mean A LOT WORSE. Venezuela is pretty bad right now but Maduro is still there and Free Market reforms need to be implemented without the fallout leading to Chavez nostalgia and Raimondo and Rockwell gushing over the Chavista dead-enders.

    1. By the end of Hillary’s presidency, we’ll all look back at 2016 as the Golden Age of Liberty, when Americans were permitted to drive their own cars, own firearms, pay for things in cash, and criticism politicians with impunity (not always, I realize).

  60. Interesting fact that the Gadsden Flag was created by a slave-owner who fought a violent rebellion against the legal in order to create a criminal slave state. So shouldn’t it be banned according to Reason’s own logic?

  61. So some defenders of Johnson/Weld are saying that they are just lying about their libertarianism until they get more votes. Problem is that it sure seems like they (especially Weld) would rather just ditch libertarianism and turn the LP into a moderate centrist party. And what will stop the LP from furthering watering down libertarianism? And the problems with a positive campaign is that they are trying to as if things are wonderful which leads to the question of why vote out the status quo and trying to be “nice” won’t work when you advocate policies that the political and media class regard as very mean.

    I mean even Johnson’s proposals of ending some regulations, 20% budget cut and eliminating three Departments are pretty extreme for American politics. I mean can you imagine the attacks on getting rid of the Education, Commerce and HUD? Johnson wants to destroy education, the economy, homes and cities! Wants to burn books, turn kids into uneducated morons and allow corporations to poison water! Wants to destroy cities and homes and force march people into urban areas to live in rape camps! Black people and other minorities will be adversely effected so he is a racist that wants to kill black people and poor people. All the teachers unions, Chamber of Commerce, government unions, BLM, “community organizers” will be on the streets and the MSM will be filling the airways with how insane he is. And how does Reason and the LP intend to respond to this inevitably?

    1. Tiresome, bizarre stream of consciousness and sarcasm. Misses a central point. A simple ejaculation of anger and or frustration would be less tedious for the reader.

  62. And what will stop the LP from furthering watering down libertarianism?

    I think the LP (as a party) is more consistent than that… and I don’t think that the planks overall (despite Johnson/Weld) will support a “watering down” in the long term.

    Perhaps that’s cockeyed optimism on my part, though.

  63. Thank you! It was a wonderful chance to visit this kind of site. I hope you will publish more on this topic. Thanks a lot for sharing with us!
    Get my ex love back
    Online vashikaran mantra

  64. I’m sure this has already been said in the above 300+ comments, but it bears repeating:

    Suderman, she is not being “misleading” or “having trouble with the truth.” She’s lying. She’s a pathological liar who lies constantly and then lies about those lies, even when she has been caught and discredited repeatedly about those very lies by the person she is lying to. She is incapable of admitting she did something wrong and lies in a manner and to such a degree that suggests deeply rooted mental illness.

    Call her a liar. She is one.

    1. Even in criticism, Suderman sticks to the official narrative.

      Whose a good boy! Here’s a chew for the good boy!

  65. People, can’t we just FINALLY understand that when a Village Elder lies, it’s for our own good – in the long run? Like a good parent who lies to their fallow minded, uncomprehending children? Her Majesty LOVES us and wants what’s best for us, and if she has to white lie a little here and there, it’s for the best. Why can’t you SEE that? If our Betters can go out of their way to do that Noblesse Oblige thingy for us the least we could do is doff our caps and cast our eyes downward. But instead this Saint – yes, I said it SAINT – has to put up with such insolent back talk from you peons. It sickens me.

    Now I must go rub one out – my new edition of Comely Cankles just came in the mail…

  66. Clinton is a bigger war monger than Cheney.

  67. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.Today40.com

  68. Clinton’s server was prima facie criminal and corrupt once the story broke that she had one. That she kept it after working, had her lawyers comb through it for documents, and destroyed 10s of thousands of documents are prima facie evidence of more crimes.

    Obviously, violating secrecy laws to the tune of *thousands* of counts. She was the Secretary of State. Of course the majority of her communiques concerning diplomacy contain classified information.

    Evading record keeping laws. Failing to turn over federal property after she was no longer a federal employee. Destruction of federal property. Exposing classified materials to multiple uncleared personnel. Obstruction of justice.

    A peasant would be looking at a prison term until the sun burned out in the sky.

    Hillary for Prison 2016!

  69. Clinton Email Statement Clarifies That She Still Has Trouble With the Truth

    Behold the awesome power of understatement!

  70. She says she only used one email device, address and server.
    She says she never sent nor received one classified email over the bathroom server.
    So WTF did she do as SOS for 4 years if she never read nor wrote a classified email?
    Use clay tablets and a stylus for all classified communications?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.