The Glade 4.0

With Hillary's win of California, Sanders' shot at the Dem nom is done for the most part. And since Hillary is more hated than Trump, especially after having her rammed down our throats by shenanigans, I'm looking forward to our Next pres.

It'll be fun watching the world burn.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

She's not some cartoon villain with power over everything. She actually won by every measure.

My mom, a Republican who HATES Clinton with the fire of a thousand suns, will not even vote for Trump. She'd rather stay home and not vote at all.

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

Hard to lose when the media and big business are behind her 100% and wouldn't give Sanders equal time of day. Its notable that she did well in closed Dem primaries, but Bernie dominated the caucuses.

So yeah, she "won". Mostly through voter suppression and DNC shenanigans. The Oligarchs want her, fine. They can have Trump.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

As depressing as it is to realize that Trump has won the nomination, it is just as depressing to realize that Clinton won, no voter suppression or shenanigans necessary. She may have just had a better understanding of the rules of the party she has belonged to for however-many decades, as opposed to Sanders.

I spoke to my insurance agent today about stuff, and I'm convinced again that Trump will win. /sigh

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

The one positive is that most polls show Clinton beating Trump (albeit by a far-too-slim) margin).

Democrats almost universally have better graphic design for their campaigns than Republicans, and that holds true this year as well. That said, the kerning on Hillary Clinton's chosen font irks me slightly for some reason that I find hard to articulate, even though I still like it in a general sense. Sanders' is much better. Trump's is an ugly mess. I realized this morning that this exactly mirrors my opinion on the election itself.

Except the measure where someone with Bernie Sanders's positions should never have even come close to her. The fact that it took this long to put him away is definitely a loss in the moral sense. It speaks very highly of Bernie's personal conduct, integrity, and convictions compared to his peers that he mounted such a strong challenge, but it speaks even more strongly of just how weak a candidate Hillary Clinton is. She is being propped up by the investment the press and the Democrats have made in trying to anoint her. Bernie still beat 2 other reasonable Democrat candidates, a run-of-the-mill east coast leftist and a run-of-the-mill moderate (3 if you count Chaffee, but he was so personally absurd that it's really not fair to the Democrats to count him; it was more a matter of them humoring him for a short time.)

The same applies with Trump. By conventional wisdom she should have a minimum 20-point lead over him. The media is trying desperately to prop her up; witness the re-discussion of Trump University as soon as the State Department IG report appeared, never mind that the Trump U story is months old. As for the comments about the judge, this convinces only people that already subscribe to the canard that Trump is a racist - The judge is a La Raza activist and Trump wants to deport people. If the situation were reversed and a Hispanic judge were questioning the impartiality of a white judge, especially one affiliated with a racial or ethnic advocacy group, that concern with racism wouldn't be present. The news loves counting white, minority, male, and female jurors in other cases. It's only "racist" because it's Donald Trump doing it. His offense here is crassness, not racism.

If you don't believe me, Scott Adams explains it much better.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hillary is going to be the Democratic candidate. This was decided in 2008 when she threw her support behind Obama after the primary. There was a deal made. Hillary would get her chance to be the first female president in 2016. The superdelegates were pledged to Hillary before Obama took office. No Democratic candidate ever had a chance, and they all knew it.

The FBI has determined that a crime occurred with Hillary's email scandal. The only reason she is not being indicted is because the president owes her a personal favor. Hillary is among the class of politicians that feel as though they are above the law, and the Party is taking care of business to ensure that she never has to be called to account for her actions. The other Democratic candidates left the primary race because they are convinced Hillary won't be indicted. Sanders is hanging around just in case.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I note that you specify "Democratic candidate" - which I assume is intentional. Bernie only became a Democrat for this election, and to be fair mounted a credible challenge, in a large part because he was impossible for the press to discredit without tipping their hand.



Which is a wise move on his part. At this point, the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. The FBI director is highly regarded for honesty, but if she is not indicted a large part of the country will assume special favors - justifiably given the ease with which one can be indicted for crimes involving classified information and the zeal shown in other cases. If she is indicted, much of the Democrat base will not be able to accept it is not a Republican set-up even though the only control the Republicans have is to convey Congressional umbrage.

Remember, in the eyes of much of the Democrat electorate, there is no scandal that is legit if aimed at them, and no false one aimed at a Republican. Many view the end of the Cold War as the beginning of Democrat entitlement to total control of all branches of government becuase the Republicans are racist warmonger reactionaries. If the Republicans win it's due to cheating, either of the overt (although undemosntrated) kind or by appealing to "white male voters" who are no longer permitted to matter.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think it would be funny if Sanders gave them all the single finger salute and ran as an independent.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

The real issue in my mind with indicting Hilary at this point is that while there is certainly enough evidence to bring charges, it's very doubtful that they have enough to actually get a conviction at trial. "We know that a crime was committed" is exactly the same line that militant feminists use when the state declines to prosecute an alleged rapist for lack of evidence. It's not like they couldn't bring charges, the grand jury is one small step above being a straight up rubber stamp and everyone knows it. Indicting a major party candidate on the eve of their nomination with a flimsy case is about the worst precedent ever. I mean, Obama could also have the Justice Department bring a criminal fraud case against Trump over the Trump University allegation, as again, the evidence bar for getting past a grand jury is almost zero. Is this the kind of **** we want to happen every election? It's just not a good idea in general to bring charges against someone with a credible chance of winning the Presidency unless the case is an absolute slam dunk.

We actually don't have any idea how much evidence they really have - and you are not in any position to evaluate whether its doubtful or not. I'm not either, primarily because I also lack that information. However, I can say that espionage and mishandling of classified information are not even a little similar to rape cases. In particular, when feminists say that they are trying to dismiss the defense of consent by fiat. There is no consent defense here and the legal questions at issue are almost completely different. Trying to "gotcha" Coro by claiming he sounds like a feminist is just silly.



Is it? Or does it demonstrate to the public that the case IS flimsy (an assertion we cannot evaluate at this point) and allow everyone to see that? Trump is not likely to be a 2-term President and isn't likely to accomplish very much. Sacrificing 4 years to get a likely win in 2020 and restore some public confidence in the system in the process is a good bargain; it makes the Democrats look principled.



That's a different situation for a number of different reasons -

- Fraud is much harder to prove than espionage
- There is already a civil case, which can be just as damaging election-wise
- Shady and substandard business practices are really not in the same league as putting SI at risk

To put it more simply - Trump U. did not get anyone killed, or even create a serious risk of it. While it's good to avoid the precedent of charging the other party's candidate in an election year, by the same token running for President should not inoculate one against criminal charges either - especially not when that person is in the lead largely because their party and the press has been foisting her on the public for the past 20 years. If the FBI has enough evidence for a reasonable shot at a conviction, or believes they will in the reasonably near future they should ask the AG to charge her and let the Administration solve their own problems.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

According to the last report I read, the FBI was recommending the Justice Department prosecute.

A law enforcement agency stating that a crime has occurred and recommending prosecution is a far cry from feminists claiming a rape occurred.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Has this been made public yet? I have not seen anything on a report either way, either on Hillary herself or anyone else.

The only thing I have seen is that the FBI has affirmed it is conducting a criminal investigation and it does not do "security reviews" (and in fact it is befuddled as to what a "security review" is, since evidently no procedure by that name exists.)

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'd have to dig it up. I should clarify that report means "news report." I don't regularly read official FBI reports.

It's possible I'm in error about recommending prosecution.

The definitive declaration that the crime of espionage had occurred has been issued and reported by numerous outlets.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I don't see what they can possibly pin on Hillary over this. Simply having the emails is clearly not illegal, if it was there's no way she'd be escaping prosecution because she admits to this. The felony she likely committed is destruction of federal records, she deleted and never turned over a portion of the emails and we only have her word that everything deleted was just personal correspondence. However, unless she was dumb enough to delete them in a way that leaves them recoverable, there's no evidence of what used to be there. Barring someone that received SI from her coming forward, (not likely, as they would themselves be admitting to a felony) how can they pin anything on her?

We don't know if she's escaping prosecution or not yet. The FBI likes to have its case completely wrapped up, ironclad, and are particularly wise to do so in this case both because of its high profile nature and Clinton's ability to afford the best lawyers - she'd have lawyers lining up begging to defend her just for the publicity.

Having classified materials stored in an unauthorized manner, however, is definitely illegal. I don't know where you get the idea that it's "clearly not"; that's laughably inaccurate, and if your contention is "She hasn't been prosecuted at this arbitrary point in time therefore her actions must have been legal" that's a particularly entertaining non sequiter.



We don't have any access to the investigation information; its been going on for months, at least one person has been granted immunity and you're trying to reduce it to "well, she hasn't been prosecuted so far and only dumb people leave computer records in a recoverable state therefore there's no chance of a case against her."

I don't know much of anything about the ins and outs of computer forensics, but I am pretty sure that there are all sorts of ways to recover records that even pretty smart people think are unrecoverable. She may, indeed, be guilty of destroying records too, but she is hardly out of the woods on classified material either.

Either way, your inability to see how she can be prosecuted has everything to do with the fact that about 99% of the information on this matter has not been released to the public, and your complete and total unfamiliarity with the legal issues involved. There may or may not be a case against her, but not for any of the reasons you cite. I'm going to take a lesson from Coro here though, and not give any more free lessons on the legal system and criminal investigation. What you're doing would be the equivalent of telling Coro an electrical motor doesn't work the way he thinks it does because you can't get your garage door opener to work.

Statements like that are so absurd it's not worth the time to refute them, and you're doing the same thing here. In fact, I'm already regretting even typing this much.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If they're really classified, just having them on your computer IS actually illegal and can result in up to 10 years in prison per email if you're not Hillary Clinton.

If you are Hillary Clinton then just **** lol.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I can not possibly imagine why much investigation would be required at all in regards to the emails that were not erased. She admits to having them, she turned them over. If simply possessing these emails was illegal they would not need to do any investigation at all, it would literally be a judgment as a matter of law as none of the facts are in dispute.

With regards to the erased files, if she had the data sectors overwritten then the data can not be recovered. It is, I suppose, theoretically possible that the CIA has access to a technique that can recover overwritten sectors but no evidence of this exists and revealing its existence would be something far more significant than Hillary Clinton getting prosecuted.

I agree that not much information about this has been released but the fact that properly erased data cannot be recovered means the most likely explanation for what's going on is they don't have enough evidence to proceed. If I had to guess, I would guess that they're trying to track down people that she sent copies of the erased data to in order to acquire some evidence, but that's just a guess and is why I included the caveat that they might have a case against her if they find a recipient.

You can't imagine it because you lack the knowledge base to imagine it, not because there isn't a reason. The short version is because lawyers.



You're asuming she's the only target of the information and that no metadata or other tracable information exists. The "most likely explanation" is that you are making wild *** guesses because you dont even know how much informatiin you lack.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Evidence can be found on other email servers. If classified information was sent by accounts that were on her personal server, or sent from other computers to her personal server, then it's pretty easy to determine the server had classified information on it, even if it has been physically destroyed.

And the investigation goes beyond just whether or not classified information was on the server. Who knew about, and what, if anything was done about it? Or what was done to cover it up?

Like DE has said, we don't know all of the details of the investigation, but it doesn't really matter. It's almost a certainty that there was classified information on that server, and Hillary is complicit in it being there, and possibly in trying to cover it up.

The only remaining detail is who is going to take the fall for her.

She certainly isn't going to fall on her sword to protect her server admins and other staff who may be involved.

Sanders should endorse Johnson, that will **** with Clinton.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Sweet Meteor O'Death is catching up in the polls.
https://twitter.com/smod2016?lang=en

_________________

Vladimir Putin can render all of this irrelevant; we can only hope that he's so inclined.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."