Support NeoGAF

[Revolver]

WOW, the meltdown on various right-wing US political sites and their comments sections are quite something (National Review, Politico). :lol

Yeah, Comey is a Bush flunkie out to stop Trump from getting in the White House is a fun little conspiracy theory I've been seeing.

 

[MIMIC]

Ahhh Facebook has been fun to read this afternoon.

Shocking.

At least I know to stay off Facebook today, as every Republican idiot will be sharing stories from websites I haven't heard of that obviously aren't biased..

I actually like to browse Facebook when news like this drops. The salt gives me life.

I always (ALWAYS) see this after some a political story that hurts Republicans.

Am I like the only Democrat here that isn't friends with a huge contingent of vocal Republicans that flood FB timelines with anti-Democrat memes and stories?

 

[jack_package_200]

I always (ALWAYS) see this after some a political story that hurts Republicans.

Am I like the only Democrat here that isn't friends with a huge contingent of vocal Republicans that flood FB timelines with anti-Democrat memes and stories?

I know people who lean to the far left who post anti democrat memes as well.

Its what I get for living in the pacific northwest

 

[Nomadic Sparks]

Since you clearly have zero experience in dealing with classified information, let me enlighten you a bit.

I've conducted four investigations for accidental/negligent discharge of classified data...in 2016. This stuff happens all the time, and it completely comes down to the circumstances of the event as to whether or not we do a damn thing about it. I've had people carry a backpack full of classified data outside of a SCIF environment. We bring the hammer down for that.

People sending TS data over NIPR can be a serious event, depending on who the recipients were, whether or not we can establish positive control of the distro chain, and explanation for how the data came to be on an unclassified system.

If Hillary and company were discussing TS initiatives and programs in veiled, roundabout terminology, it's fucking nothing. If Hillary was forwarding improperly marked emails that she received on her Blackberry, the originator will be investigated and may have disciplinary action. If Hillary is literally purposefully copying/pasting or typing data she knows is TS into her BB, then she should have charges.

From what we've heard on this case, we know it's not option C. So we're left with fucking nothing.

If you want to use this as a stump for a racist, misogynistic, thin-skinned, uneducated asshole to be president, be my guest. Join Trump in putting on clown shoes while you're at it.

This post is an inferno of facts and logics.

Best post of the year.

 

[banefirelord]

I always (ALWAYS) see this after some a political story that hurts Republicans.

Am I like the only Democrat here that isn't friends with a huge contingent of vocal Republicans that flood FB timelines with anti-Democrat memes and stories?

All I've been seeing on my timeline is diehard Bernie supporters beating the "she's just as bad as Trump!" drum.

 

[Arnie7]

Do you really want a President that is carless with nuclear warheads?!

 

[Kyzer]

As a Hillary supporter that doesn't have my head up my ass it does disappoint me greatly that:

1) It is confirmed she mishandled marked classified information. 100+ emails...

2) She destroyed evidence to not allow the FBI to find forensic traces of what she did. Thats really horrible.

3) She outright lied about handling classified information.


But I am impressed that:

1) She was so thorough that the FBI had to come out and say "we know she did all of this but we don't have evidence to prosecute her for it". Damn! She literally got away with it!

 

[whyamihere]

Given Trump's relative silence, I imagine Manafort has taken every phone and computer in Trump Tower.

 

[lastflowers]

Glad H-Dawg isn't indicted. That would have been disastrous. Still not great PR, though. Not much has changed since yesterday.

 

[Wallach]

shocking news

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Republicans approached this one from the wrong angle. They went in too hard on the potential illegality of it because that was the juicier headline and the one with the best short-term gains. They should have been preparing a general election strategy against Hillary than trying to ding her boat in the primary.

The way they should have done this was to approach it on two questions: 1) Was she careless and 2) Was she unethical? The answer to the first one was yes, and the fact that this was clearly obvious even at the beginning of the scandal that it would be true would have made it extremely easy to build that narrative in the general election. It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

The answer to the second one doesn't matter when the first one is established. It feeds into long-standing suspicions about her and gets the question going.

Now that they've gone to "Yo she's gonna be indicted!!", they can't really walk it back to "Yo she's pretty careless!!" They started at 11 and are trying to get to 6 and it's not going to work.

 

[Kyzer]

Republicans approached this one from the wrong angle. They went in too hard on the potential illegality of it because that was the juicier headline and the one with the best short-term gains. They should have been preparing a general election strategy against Hillary than trying to ding her boat in the primary.

The way they should have done this was to approach it on two questions: 1) Was she careless and 2) Was she unethical? The answer to the first one was yes, and the fact that this was clearly obvious even at the beginning of the scandal that it would be true would have made it extremely easy to build that narrative in the general election. It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

The answer to the second one doesn't matter when the first one is established. It feeds into long-standing suspicions about her and gets the question going.

Now that they've gone to "Yo she's gonna be indicted!!", they can't really walk it back to "Yo she's pretty careless!!" They started at 11 and are trying to get to 6 and it's not going to work.

Pretty much. They were quick to jump to the "she should have her ass thrown in jail" angle

 

[RealityCheque]

Sure, but all politicians -- nay, ALL people -- are dishonest, so you have to accept that one if you live in the real world. So you're basically asking which is worse, negligence or racism? And if you have trouble with that, then you're kinda the turd in this scenario.

Going with the idea of "they all lie, what do you expect?" my answer is always the same:

"Something better."

Seems like its too much to ask to be able to vote for candidates who have even a little substance. And that's not just in America, western politics in general is suffering from a long term decline in talented individuals (beyond the talent of self-promotion).

So thanks for calling me a turd for feeling that the choice to vote for either a liar or a racist, is to not want to associate myself with either.

By the way, this kind of thing has been prosecuted before.

 

[Ray Wonder]

So what's the deal here. She broke the law, but not on purpose and not on a large enough scale to be tried in court for it?

 

[Revolver]

Republicans approached this one from the wrong angle. They went in too hard on the potential illegality of it because that was the juicier headline and the one with the best short-term gains. They should have been preparing a general election strategy against Hillary than trying to ding her boat in the primary.

The way they should have done this was to approach it on two questions: 1) Was she careless and 2) Was she unethical? The answer to the first one was yes, and the fact that this was clearly obvious even at the beginning of the scandal that it would be true would have made it extremely easy to build that narrative in the general election. It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

The answer to the second one doesn't matter when the first one is established. It feeds into long-standing suspicions about her and gets the question going.

Now that they've gone to "Yo she's gonna be indicted!!", they can't really walk it back to "Yo she's pretty careless!!" They started at 11 and are trying to get to 6 and it's not going to work.

They can't help themselves from going overboard. They practically had her shooting Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi.

 

[Kreed]

So what's the deal here. She broke the law, but not on purpose and not on a large enough scale to be tried in court for it?

She didn't do this either. She was just careless/sloppy with the handling of emails, but this isn't unique to Hillary either. So if you are looking for something on Hillary, it's that she was careless.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Going with the idea of "they all lie, what do you expect?" my answer is always the same:

"Something better."

Seems like its too much to ask to be able to vote for candidates who have even a little substance. And that's not just in America, western politics in general is suffering from a long term decline in talented individuals (beyond the talent of self-promotion).

So thanks for calling me a turd for feeling that the choice to vote for either a liar or a racist, is to not want to associate myself with either.

You're the one who put on the table that it was an oh-so hard and difficult choice for you to choose between two turds; racism and dishonesty. I'm saying if you can't pick out which smells worse then the problem is you. All politicians are dishonest. So if your choice is between dishonest and racist versus dishonest, and you're having difficulty with that decision, then that speaks ill of you.

But you're more than welcome to sit back and wish for 'something better'. But this is the real world and you're not going to get your wish. Virtually nobody gets to pick a perfect candidate.

 

[adj_noun]

They can't help themselves from going overboard. They practically had her shooting Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi.

I'm just waiting to see how Vince Foster ties into all of this.

We're through the layers of the looking onion here, people.

 

[Ray Wonder]

She didn't do this either. She was just careless/sloppy with the handling of emails, but this isn't exclusive/unique to Hillary either. So if you are looking for something on Hillary, it's that she was careless/sloppy.

I'm not sure what you're saying is different to what I'm saying. She was careless/sloppy with classified information sent on a private server. Isn't that against the law? It just would've needed to be more classified emails to be able to indict her?

 

[whyamihere]

By the way, this kind of thing has been prosecuted before.

It's not really a one-to-one comparison, though he probably shouldn't have been indicted or convicted since there was no intent.

I'm not sure what you're saying is different to what I'm saying. She was careless/sloppy with classified information sent on a private server. Isn't that against the law? It just would've needed to be more classified emails to be able to indict her?

They chose not to indict because they do not believe they have a viable case against Hillary Clinton that she broke the law, is what happened today.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Republicans approached this one from the wrong angle. They went in too hard on the potential illegality of it because that was the juicier headline and the one with the best short-term gains. They should have been preparing a general election strategy against Hillary than trying to ding her boat in the primary.

The way they should have done this was to approach it on two questions: 1) Was she careless and 2) Was she unethical? The answer to the first one was yes, and the fact that this was clearly obvious even at the beginning of the scandal that it would be true would have made it extremely easy to build that narrative in the general election. It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

The answer to the second one doesn't matter when the first one is established. It feeds into long-standing suspicions about her and gets the question going.

Now that they've gone to "Yo she's gonna be indicted!!", they can't really walk it back to "Yo she's pretty careless!!" They started at 11 and are trying to get to 6 and it's not going to work.

Their guy has no experience, supports torture, corruption of blood punishments, trade wars, and rampant xenophobia.

Why would anyone sane care about bad IT practices by comparison?

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Do you really want a President that is carless with nuclear warheads?!

Mass transit is the future

 

[Saint Gregory]

Republicans approached this one from the wrong angle. They went in too hard on the potential illegality of it because that was the juicier headline and the one with the best short-term gains. They should have been preparing a general election strategy against Hillary than trying to ding her boat in the primary.

The way they should have done this was to approach it on two questions: 1) Was she careless and 2) Was she unethical? The answer to the first one was yes, and the fact that this was clearly obvious even at the beginning of the scandal that it would be true would have made it extremely easy to build that narrative in the general election. It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

The answer to the second one doesn't matter when the first one is established. It feeds into long-standing suspicions about her and gets the question going.

Now that they've gone to "Yo she's gonna be indicted!!", they can't really walk it back to "Yo she's pretty careless!!" They started at 11 and are trying to get to 6 and it's not going to work.

But in the end even if they had none of it would have mattered since they couldn't get their own house in order and have a literal clown show as their chosen candidate.

An indictment as unlikely as it's been from the beginning was their only slim hope.

 

[Ray Wonder]

They chose not to indict because they do not believe they have a viable case against Hillary Clinton that she broke the law, is what happened today.

I'm genuinely just wondering how many does it need to be to be against the law?


110 emails sent with classified information. That's out of 30,000 or so. If it was 500 would it be treated the same? Is there a specific amount or type of data?

I just don't really understand what the process behind making the decision to indict her is.

 

[Haunted]

Do you really want a President that is carless with nuclear warheads?!

#cycling

 

[Adaren]

Seems like its too much to ask to be able to vote for candidates who have even a little substance.

Hillary isn't perfect 24/7, but if you're looking for candidates with substantive plans then you could do a whole lot worse than her.

 

[teruterubozu]

WOW, the meltdown on various right-wing US political sites and their comments sections are quite something (National Review, Politico). :lol

It's either meltdown or "yup, not surprising." Nothing in between though.

 

[MIMIC]

So what's the deal here. She broke the law, but not on purpose and not on a large enough scale to be tried in court for it?

The federal statute requires specific intent (meaning there must be evidence that they meant to act with an illegal purpose). Whereas with general intent, it must only be shown that they meant to commit the act (regardless of the purpose of committing the act.

 

[Daft Punk]

Extremely careless? Isn't that a synonym to gross negligence? This is insane. I don't think I want to live in America anymore. Can't trust Hilary and don't want to deal with Trump. FFFFUUUUUUUCK.

 

[Iolo]

Republicans approached this one from the wrong angle. They went in too hard on the potential illegality of it because that was the juicier headline and the one with the best short-term gains. They should have been preparing a general election strategy against Hillary than trying to ding her boat in the primary.

The way they should have done this was to approach it on two questions: 1) Was she careless and 2) Was she unethical? The answer to the first one was yes, and the fact that this was clearly obvious even at the beginning of the scandal that it would be true would have made it extremely easy to build that narrative in the general election. It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

The answer to the second one doesn't matter when the first one is established. It feeds into long-standing suspicions about her and gets the question going.

Now that they've gone to "Yo she's gonna be indicted!!", they can't really walk it back to "Yo she's pretty careless!!" They started at 11 and are trying to get to 6 and it's not going to work.

Approached this one from the wrong angle? It's how they have approached every single Clinton scandal for the last thirty years. It's why no one outside the fever swamp takes them seriously!

Despite this, it's still taken a huge toll on her trustworthiness numbers, so it is working in general.

 

[whyamihere]

Extremely careless? Isn't that a synonym to gross negligence?

No, it's not, why is why there was no indictment.

 

[gutterboy44]

As a Hillary supporter that doesn't have my head up my ass it does disappoint me greatly that:

1) It is confirmed she mishandled marked classified information. 100+ emails...

2) She destroyed evidence to not allow the FBI to find forensic traces of what she did. Thats really horrible.

3) She outright lied about handling classified information.


But I am impressed that:

1) She was so thorough that the FBI had to come out and say "we know she did all of this but we don't have evidence to prosecute her for it". Damn! She literally got away with it!

Didn't Comey say there found no evidence of intentional destruction of emails to obscure of cover up things for the investigation? That the deleted emails they found were in line with regular email server/account maintenance? That is an important detail.

 

[The Technomancer]

Didn't Comey say there found no evidence of intentional destruction of emails to obscure of cover up things for the investigation? That the deleted emails they found were in line with regular email server/account maintenance? That is an important detail.

Of course they couldn't find it maaaaaan they destroyed that evidence too

 

[TheLaughingStock]

This is the most rigged outrage I've ever seen. Total sham!

 

[Wilsongt]

All of the salt around the internet today isn't good for my blood pressure. This is just going to increase the cries that the government is corrupt and in the pockets of big money establishments.

 

[TomServo]

I wasn't expecting criminal charges, but there should be some people having their clearances stripped.

 

[mo60]

I do think Huffington Post and Salon need to be blasted for giving people like Lmao Goodman a platform to espouse their insanity

I don't think he can post articles anymore on either site.

 

[Ray Wonder]

The federal statute requires specific intent (meaning there must be evidence that they meant to act with an illegal purpose). Whereas with general intent, it must only be shown that they meant to commit the act (regardless of the purpose of committing the act.

Ok so its possible for her to accidentally send 10,000 classified emails without being indicted? As long she doesn't intend on doing harm?

No, it's not, why is why there was no indictment.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/extreme
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negligence

 

[Already Torn]

All of the salt around the internet today isn't good for my blood pressure. This is just going to increase the cries that the government is corrupt and in the pockets of big money establishments.

I guess we would have gotten this regardless of the outcome.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't think he can post articles anymore on either site.

Salon actually paid him for his shit. THEY PAID HIM ACTUAL MONEY.

 

[Deadstar]

The powerful do not get punished.

 

[Storm Raider]

Laughing at the people with Hilary avatars & people saying 'Slay queen!!'

What a great election

Between Hilary, Bernie, and Trump; I don't know who's supporters are worse

 

[Sianos]

Looks like if your most important issue as a voter is ethics in electronic mail you'll be forced to go third party or abstain your vote this time.

In 2006, when a judge ordered Donald Trump's casino operation to hand over several years' worth of emails, the answer surprised him: The Trump Organization routinely erased emails and had no records from 1996 to 2001. The defendants in a case that Trump brought said this amounted to destruction of evidence, a charge never resolved.

At that time, a Trump IT director testified that until 2001, executives in Trump Tower relied on personal email accounts using dial-up Internet services, despite the fact that Trump had launched a high-speed Internet provider in 1998 and announced he would wire his whole building with it. Another said Trump had no routine process for preserving emails before 2005.

...

As the Trump Hotels court case dragged on, the defendants asked the judge to enforce sanctions against Trump for destroying evidence. Trump’s company failed to preserve emails and “has been regularly destroying data and evidence located on its computer, both before and after this case was filed,” the companies charged in a May 2007 motion. One Trump executive had his computer replaced in 2005, after Trump filed his complaint against Fields and the other casino developers, and “there were emails on the hard drive of his old computers that were not migrated to his new computer or otherwise preserved,” the defendants argued.

But the case was settled before the judge ruled on whether Trump's company had destroyed evidence.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs-ago-republican-hillary-president/85795082/

It does displease me that Hillary is rather poor with technology, but I'm able to see the big picture here and am prioritizing the continuation of the building of the Obama-Clinton rock solid foundational policy legacy upon which we can pursue a steadily more progressive future with little opportunity for it to be rolled back as opposed to quibbling over an overblown scandal.

 

[gutterboy44]

Of course they couldn't find it maaaaaan they destroyed that evidence too

But they didn't. They decommissioned a server by uninstalling Exchange(or Exchange like software). Like he said, it is like dumping a puzzle back on the floor. Destroying emails would mean no traces at all, like dumping that puzzle into a fire place, not the floor and walking away. What they did is a simple way to make sure that server won't ever function as an email server again, but you can leave everything else intact. There are more effective ways to archive emails/mailboxes/transaction logs, but that is a simple/lazy way to keep mailboxes in tact while removing all server functionality. It would be literally the dumbest way to hide emails if you were trying to cover shit up. Painting eyes on the server and calling it your robot butler would be a more effective cover up.

 

[ElFly]

It would have been so easy to pivot any national security problems under Obama to how Hillary's carelessness would make it much worse.

This would require painting Obama in a not-that-bad light though.

 

[3phemeral]

Cry more.

"Only facts matter. And the FBI found them here in an entire apolitical and professional way."

"There was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

"We are expressing to justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."​

 

[MIMIC]

Ok so its possible for her to accidentally send 10,000 classified emails without being indicted? As long she doesn't intend on doing harm?



http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/extreme
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/negligence

LOL, please don't make me defend Hillary Clinton. But anyway.....

If they found that she used a private server to evade protocol or hid things from the government or destroyed evidence to cover-up a wrongdoing (I suppose), that would amount to specific intent. Rather she did it because it was easier and simple (I'm just assuming because I didn't really follow this story too closely)

Also, "gross negligence" is a legal term of art; it doesn't mean the same thing outside of the legal world. I'd say that it's code for "intentional", "unbelievably, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt stupid," or something like that. Like if she was replying to supporters/donors in the same email chain.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Extremely careless? Isn't that a synonym to gross negligence?

Yes, we live in a synonym-dependent legal system. If only they had investigated all the synonyms, they really could have gotten her.

 

[hawk2025]

Going with the idea of "they all lie, what do you expect?" my answer is always the same:

"Something better."

Seems like its too much to ask to be able to vote for candidates who have even a little substance. And that's not just in America, western politics in general is suffering from a long term decline in talented individuals (beyond the talent of self-promotion).

So thanks for calling me a turd for feeling that the choice to vote for either a liar or a racist, is to not want to associate myself with either.

By the way, this kind of thing has been prosecuted before.

But the bolded is precisely NOT the problem with Hillary. In fact, it's her biggest asset. There is a ton of substance -- even an overwhelming amount for most voters -- it's the scandals and controversies that often knocks her down.

Her knowledge of policy is near second to none.

 

[Haunted]

Yes, we live in a synonym-dependent legal system. If only they had investigated all the synonyms, they really could have gotten her.

This does seem to be what some people actually believe, what with all the hullabaloo about Obama avoiding the term "radical Islam" in official speeches. As if calling it by a different name would make all the problems go away.