Well, there are new revelations seemingly weekly. Wonder why she didn’t just dump all this months ago?
Ah! So, there in the very middlest middle of the main steam, we find addy, the pearl of centrism!
Of the people who disapprove of Hillary, how many are just hopping mad about the horror of e-mails? I rather disapprove of Hillary, but will likely vote for her. I disapprove of acne, but prefer it to smallpox.
But we thank you for your concern! We’ll take it from here. Relax, put your feet up, have a nice cuppa.
Bullshit. My support for her has nothing to do with her integrity or morality and everything to do with her policies compared to Trump. It’s not dishonest at all to support her while she’s still got a great chance to win, but to advocate for a different nominee of she is indicted which would strongly damage her chances to win.
So stop with this bullshit criticism.
You have no idea what her policies will be. She’s flip flopped on nearly everything in order to beat Sanders. Maybe the ethical problems are a smart strategy of some sort. Distracts from the fact that she’s the biggest flip-flopper in Presidential campaigning history. That would be THE story if not for the ethics problems.
Bullshit. She’s always supported an increase to the MW; she’s always supported infrastructure spending; she’s always supported universal health care; she’s always supported SS and food stamps and other assistance programs… The details may have changed a little on some of these issues, but domestically we have a very good idea of how she will govern: somewhere in between Bill Clinton and Obama. In foreign policy there is a little more vague and altered positions, but she’s still been much more consistent and coherent than Trump, not that this is a high bar to clear.
Horseshit. Her record was more liberal than Obama and slightly “barely more moderate” than Sanders when they served together.
This is more of the bullshit that Republicans (and so-called Progressives) believe because of dogma but is not supported by the evidence.
On the bright side, if Hillary is elected President, you can bet the farm she’ll be completely up-tight with security discipline from here on out … hoe boy … I think she’s learned her lesson alrighty …
Which, of course, is an indicator of absolute truth. Just ask the runners of the Republican mudslinging machine.
I knew people capable of tying their shoes or making their own oatmeal who thought Nixon wasn’t lying.
Very broad but succinct, and absurd, responses.
The original statements:
-
Senior people have some responsibility to recognize sensitive information themselves.
-
There isn’t some authority above all of them saying what it is or isn’t
-
Hillary and someone at the CIA would have no responsibility not to have a call discussing the names of senior US moles in a hostile government on a regular cell phone? What they say on that call wasn’t ‘previously stamped classified’, but obviously they have a responsibility not to do that. The idea of the system and the law is to protect sensitive information, not to follow a particular rote procedure. In some cases that could cut in favor of a person accused of a violation. But to say there’s no such responsibility is ridiculous.
-
Senior officials responsible for areas of the executive branch and ultimately the head of the branch, ie the President, have input to classification decisions. Again this could cut both ways. For example at times Presidents have been accused of ‘leaking classified information’ when it leaks from the WH for apparently political purposes. But the President can declassify whatever he wants to. It’s a question of whether it’s responsible, not legal. The Secy of State doesn’t have that full latitude, and could run into legal problems. But the idea that classification is decided on a level of authority above everybody is self evidently ridiculous.
No, it’s the same old desperate trivial bullshit repeated weekly.
The NY Times? The Obama State Department?
What has she been convicted of again? What actual evidence do you have?
The GOP throws tantrums and does nonstop investigations because they’re evil cunts. The fact that with the keys to the subpoenas, all they’ve ever been able to throw against her is nonsense like, “email-gate” means Clinton is fantastically above-board.
The New York Times has a history of also getting into the mud when Clinton is the subject. And the State Department Report is about rules, not laws. What I noted is that no punishment or recommendation of it was in there. But that she was slammed for what she admitted that it was a mistake is clear.
One thing I do note here too, for all that Clinton AFAIK has not banned the NTY from her campaign; Trump, in a move that not even Nixon did, has banished several news groups from covering his campaign.
Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything, therefore he’s never done anything wrong. All allegations against him are obviously made up.
I think you have it backwards, all allegations made by Trump about himself are obviously made up. 
Frankly speaking -
All this talking isn’t worth anything.
How long has this investigation been going on for now? You really think that after so long, Clinton will be indicted prior to the election?
There is totally ZERO chance of that happening now and the chances become less after the convention. In exactly the same way that the Trump U case won’t be heard before the election, or any of the other myriad of things perculating about Donald’s malfeasance. (no the Tax Dept will NOT make any comment on his returns - clean or otherwise, prior to the election either)
The only thing that can happen right now is an unequivocal statement that there will not be an indictment - that the investigation is being closed with recommendations of future procedures but no further action being taken against anyone. (and if this does happen, there will, of course, but 179 investigations after she becomes president)
Working on that basis - are there any activities of Trump’s that you view as “technical” compliance with the law and that should disqualify him?
Trump is already disqualified. 70% of voters don’t like him. Clinton is also disqualified. 55% don’t like her. So the question is, who will get a small plurality and sneak into the White House through the back door?
It is certainly easy to spin it that way to people who are desperate to find something to support a basic partisan hatred, yes.
And that’s really what you’re reduced to now, isn’t it? Finding a way to spin compliance with the law as a character flaw. 