Support NeoGAF

[Risette]

Some of the mental gymnastics Im seeing to attempt to dilute the seriousness of all this, is baffling.

But now that we have not just one, but two candidates for President that are "extremely careless", its even more baffling. Just think of any other job where it wouldnt be a good idea to put in somebody that's "extremely careless". I woulddnt want an "extremely careless" Doctor. I wouldnt want an extremely careless pilot. I wouldnt want an extremely careless person running a nuclear power plant.

But let's push to vote in an extremely careless person to be the leader of the "free world.

Nobody is diluting the seriousness really. The whole point is that yeah, it was a bad move, but it's not that big of a deal. The lack of indictment is proof of that.

 

[Abinash117]

Some of the mental gymnastics Im seeing to attempt to dilute the seriousness of all this, is baffling.

But now that we have not just one, but two candidates for President that are "extremely careless", its even more baffling. Just think of any other job where it wouldnt be a good idea to put in somebody that's "extremely careless". I woulddnt want an "extremely careless" Doctor. I wouldnt want an extremely careless pilot. I wouldnt want an extremely careless person running a nuclear power plant.

But let's push to vote in an extremely careless person to be the leader of the "free world.

Meh. I rather chose the one that is not incredibly ignorant about many things, racist, bigoted, obnoxious, lacks any sort of experience, flip-flops in one sentence, and a potential narcissist.

 

[Captin Quacker]

Have some of you completely forgotten who the other candidate is?

We're in desperate times here people

 

[Aselith]

It's scary because if you or I were operating in a situation where we could possibly let a few classified or top secret GOVERNMENT documents out, we would be put away, no questions asked.

I don't care for Trump or Hilary, but it worries me that someone could be careless with documents holding the classified or top secret status and get nothing but a, "lol its OK, she was just being silly! Next time she'll do better!"

I don't think that's correct. Do you really think the FBI just indicts everyone with no investigation? You're basically complaining about favoritism without counterexamples. Show a good example of someone getting the book thrown at them in a comparable situation.

 

[legacyzero]

Meh. I rather chose the one that is not incredibly ignorant about many things, racist, bigoted, obnoxious, lacks any sort of experience, flip-flops in one sentence, and a potential narcissist.

Agreed. As would I. But I feel like I have to settle for a lesser evil.. Trump's evils are less subtle through.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Have some of you completely forgotten who the other candidate is?

We're in desperate times here people

What could be extremely careless about a candidate that repeatedly associates himself with white supremacist and neo-nazi groups?

 

[Version 3.0]

Some of the mental gymnastics Im seeing to attempt to dilute the seriousness of all this, is baffling.

But now that we have not just one, but two candidates for President that are "extremely careless", its even more baffling. Just think of any other job where it wouldnt be a good idea to put in somebody that's "extremely careless". I woulddnt want an "extremely careless" Doctor. I wouldnt want an extremely careless pilot. I wouldnt want an extremely careless person running a nuclear power plant.

But let's push to vote in an extremely careless person to be the leader of the "free world.

"Extremely careless" in Hillary's case applies to this one scenario of data security, not exactly her area of expertise. It's not a defining characteristic of her personality, like it is with Trump. Hillary has been criticized for being "too careful" politically, and that's a more valid description of her personality than "extremely careless" is.

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Agreed. As would I. But I feel like I have to settle for a lesser evil.. Trump's evils are less subtle through.

He is about as subtle as a brick to the face.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

just goes to show you

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

He is about as subtle as a brick to the face.

I mean shit, he told his own supporters a few months ago that they were so fanboyish that they wouldn't care if he killed someone out on the street.

 

[Kraftwerk]

sorry if posted lol

 

[egruntz]

I know you guys disagree with HEULEN, but you pick on them every time there's a political thread related to the democratic race. Kind of on the point of harassment. Can you stop? lol.

Interesting decision. That puts it to a close.

 

[SummitAve]

Nobody is diluting the seriousness really. The whole point is that yeah, it was a bad move, but it's not that big of a deal. The lack of indictment is proof of that.

I don't know how it can be described as not that big of a deal. I mean the FBI director for a democrat office had to come out and contradict the very things she's been saying and then savaged her judgement and carefulness. She straight up lied throughout this whole process. It's an aggravating level of arrogance to say the least.

 

[Captin Quacker]

What could be extremely careless about a candidate that repeatedly associates himself with white supremacist and neo-nazi groups?

just give him a week or two to think on it

Can't be making brash decisions

 

[whyamihere]

I don't know how it can be described as not that big of a deal. I mean the FBI director for a democrat office had to come out and contradict the very things she's been saying and then savaged her judgement and carefulness. She straight up lied throughout this whole process. It's an aggravating level of arrogance to say the least.

Comey was Bush's Deputy AG and is a Republican. I also don't know if what she was saying was really contradicted seeing as he didn't say who marked these emails as classified. If it was State, yeah, that does. If it wasn't State, then Hillary wasn't lying about them being marked classified at the time.

 

[Nerokis]

Some of the mental gymnastics Im seeing to attempt to dilute the seriousness of all this, is baffling.

But now that we have not just one, but two candidates for President that are "extremely careless", its even more baffling. Just think of any other job where it wouldnt be a good idea to put in somebody that's "extremely careless". I woulddnt want an "extremely careless" Doctor. I wouldnt want an extremely careless pilot. I wouldnt want an extremely careless person running a nuclear power plant.

But let's push to vote in an extremely careless person to be the leader of the "free world.

"But now that we have not just one, but two candidates for President that are 'extremely careless'. . ."

In other words, you're eager to milk Comey's words as much as you possibly can. Comparing Hillary to Trump remains as ridiculous as ever.

 

[VaultBoy101]

Just got home and opened up the Reddit thread about this. It is exactly what I thought it would be. I could have ghost-written the top 5 or so comments without ever actually seeing them.

 

[atr0cious]

I know you guys disagree with HEULEN, but you pick on them every time there's a political thread related to the democratic race. Kind of on the point of harassment. Can you stop? lol.

Interesting decision. That puts it to a close.

They're a troll who claims to be lgbt yet supported a person who equated same sex marriage to bestiality. Laughing at their multitude of shit posts is how we deal with it.

 

[lastflowers]

See, the thing is he can make a point about her having poor decision making, for mishandling classified information and for a system where the very people making these decisions are campaigning on her behalf.

But instead he has to go full crazy about Clinton Foundation and selling US secrets and sneaking into the FBI, and trying to tie it to #Benghazi.

The e-mail thing is like a 6/10 political blunder. Bill might have bumped it to an 8/10 political blunder last week. Trump is trying to act like this is worse than Watergate and by overplaying his hand the American people are mostly shrugging their shoulders about the whole thing.

It's sort of a Republican hallmark at this point. Trying to overplay actual problems and then looking crazy as a result and having it blow up in their face. Move on Governor as a wise man once said.

His responses to Orlando and this have made me much less concerned about the upcoming GE


The coverup/handling of the issue has been what's worried me more. The year long prep time, fifth pleading, etc etc are all worse than the initial idiocy of rolling a private server.

 

[dramatis]

So if he doesn't get dragged through the mud on issues unrelated to the election, he's being treated with kid gloves? That's ridiculous. Is Hillary Clinton the center of the election universe? Is everything relative to how Hillary gets treated? Hillary EARNED the right to be dragged through the mud with her unholy levels of untrustworthiness, political scandals, and sense of entitlement. Sanders, being very unlikable early on, earned the right to the benefit of the doubt and be generally unassailable. Being likable is an asset and people trying to turn that into some sort of free pass is ridiculous.

"How DARE he be so likable and trustworthy!" It's like 2008 all over again.

Hillary didn't have a choice. It's either deal with this guy who is more likable than me and hope that he goes away, or try to bring up his past and destroy my own Presidential hopes.

The answer to your opening question is yes, which makes your subsequent arguments unnecessary.

Hillary Clinton is not the center of the election universe. The argument here isn't that Hillary 'let' Sanders win, but rather that Sanders has been treated better than an opponent would have been during the primary. If it had not been Hillary and instead it had been generic Dem candidate fighting to secure a majority, you can bet he or she would pull out all the stops against Bernie Sanders. It has nothing to do with whether Bernie is likeable or trustworthy, because even Obama had all of his closets aired out. The presidency is an incredibly powerful office, and all the closets will be aired out whether the candidate is nice or not.

Also, nobody fucking earns the right to be dragged through the mud. There is no such 'right', and even then nobody deserves it. If you run for president, you will be dragged.

There is an inherent contradiction in saying that "Bernie is not being treated with kid gloves even if he was not really attacked, but Hillary deserves to be attacked". If Hillary is not being treated with kid gloves and she is fielding attacks all the time, then the logical conclusion is that Sanders, who was not really attacked by Hillary, was being treated with kid gloves.

I think it is pretty obvious from your statement about how Hillary has a "sense of entitlement" why you would contort yourself into such a position. Especially considering that the "likeable and trustworthy" Bernie Sanders is currently wasting 40k taxpayer dollars every day for the security service he no longer needs because he is clearly a loser, but he is not the one called 'entitled'. That 'sense of entitlement' has been used more against Hillary Clinton than even Jeb Bush certainly says something about sexism in the USA.

 

[Jenov]

Nope.

I'm going to go with carrefully worded speech to inflict as much political damage as possible (he is a Rep from the Bush era after all) while they know they found nothing to indict. Petraeus went down fast after all.

This is what what I thought as well. Since when does the FBI have a big press op to announce no indictment? Only for Hillary.

 

[Amir0x]

hahahahAHAH.

What now, Trump? What now, NeverHillary Berniebros? Fairy tale scenario all wet?

Life is pretty easy when you live in reality.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Both made careless decisions that could have hurt our national security. Both were also aware that national security comes first since that is part of their job.

Both are carbon based. Both were disappointed when F-Troop got canceled.

 

[Kyzer]

here you go Trump campaign, use this:

#110emails

I will only accept cash from Trump, thank you.

 

[Clefargle]

Just like I thought, mistakes were clearly made but there was no nefarious attempt to undermine the security of the state department. Just bad security and lack of knowledge. This won't stick, good luck trump lol.

 

[BluePigGanon]

hahahahAHAH.

What now, Trump? What now, NeverHillary Berniebros? Fairy tale scenario all wet?

Life is pretty easy when you live in reality.

Oh they'll just cry about this for 24-48 hours then pivot to the Clinton Foundation stuff.

 

[Aselith]

here you go Trump campaign, use this:

#110emails

I will only accept cash from Trump, thank you.

You will get equity in the wall

 

[Amir0x]

Oh they'll just cry about this for 24-48 hours then pivot to the Clinton Foundation stuff.

Secretly Bernie Sanders himself is probably depressed as fuck today. His campaign readily stoked the flames of this so-called possible indictment.

 

[MIMIC]

The answer to your opening question is yes, which makes your subsequent arguments unnecessary.

Hillary Clinton is not the center of the election universe. The argument here isn't that Hillary 'let' Sanders win, but rather that Sanders has been treated better than an opponent would have been during the primary. If it had not been Hillary and instead it had been generic Dem candidate fighting to secure a majority, you can bet he or she would pull out all the stops against Bernie Sanders. It has nothing to do with whether Bernie is likeable or trustworthy, because even Obama had all of his closets aired out. The presidency is an incredibly powerful office, and all the closets will be aired out whether the candidate is nice or not.

Also, nobody fucking earns the right to be dragged through the mud. There is no such 'right', and even then nobody deserves it. If you run for president, you will be dragged.

There is an inherent contradiction in saying that "Bernie is not being treated with kid gloves even if he was not really attacked, but Hillary deserves to be attacked". If Hillary is not being treated with kid gloves and she is fielding attacks all the time, then the logical conclusion is that Sanders, who was not really attacked by Hillary, was being treated with kid gloves.

I think it is pretty obvious from your statement about how Hillary has a "sense of entitlement" why you would contort yourself into such a position. Especially considering that the "likeable and trustworthy" Bernie Sanders is currently wasting 40k taxpayer dollars every day for the security service he no longer needs because he is clearly a loser, but he is not the one called 'entitled'. That 'sense of entitlement' has been used more against Hillary Clinton than even Jeb Bush certainly says something about sexism in the USA.

OK. If Hillary handled Sanders with kids gloves, how did Sanders treat Hillary? Because I'm getting the sense that Hillary was being "nice" to Sanders but wasn't having the same favor returned.

And I never said she "deserved" to be attacked. I'm saying that she made herself ripe for attack. General public distrust, scandal after scandal, etc.

And as for the sense of entitlement, I've gone on record as saying that both Bush AND Clinton have a sense of entitlement to the White House.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Well enlighten me, please. If there's information I need to know, I want to know it. I don't have a preset opinion on this issue, but my understanding of the situation is there was classified information on her private server, which is illegal

It's not that simple. The FBI and State Department didn't even agree in all cases as to what could actually be marked as classified at the time or after the fact. There's enough grey area here that they need to find intent, and they didn't.

OK. If Hillary handled Sanders with kids gloves, how did Sanders treat Hillary? Because I'm getting the sense that Hillary was being "nice" to Sanders but wasn't having the same favor returned.

And I never said she "deserved" to be attacked. I'm saying that she made herself ripe for attack. General public distrust, scandal after scandal, etc.

And as for the sense of entitlement, I've gone on record as saying that both Bush AND Clinton have a sense of entitlement to the White House.

Conservatives built an entire entertainment news industry trying to make up scandals to pin on the Clintons. This effort has a cumulative affect, regardless of the validity of their claims. Republicans first and foremost attempt to invalidate Democrats (e.g. liberals are traitors), especially leaders like Clinton or Obama who can galvanize the Democratic party.

Sanders was barely touched in the primary. Conservatives would have hit the jackpot with Sanders, and Clinton didn't see any reason strategically to go in. Now, I'm not sure by what metric you are using to consider something to be 'kids gloves', but compare this Democratic primary with '08.

 

[sangreal]

She mishandled 110 classified, Secret, Top Secret, and Confidential documents. He even comments she should have known better. How is incredibly careless different from negligence?

You're conflating things Hillary did with systemic issues at the State Department (which she of course ran). The private email server was her stupid decision but when he talks about "Clinton or her colleagues" being extremely careless he is not referring to the private server (which he only calls 'especially concerning'). He is chastising them for the broader issue of discussing classified matters on any unclassified system which includes the State Department's email system (ie the originator of most of the emails). That issue was not created or affected by Hillary's decision to use a private server. So if you're going to say that it is gross negligence under the Espionage Act to discuss internally information "you should have known" was classified, you would have to lock up a lot more than Hillary

 

[whyamihere]

Besides a few things here and there, both Bernie and Hillary went relatively easy on each other, especially compared to 2008.

Every candidate for president probably feels "entitled", at some level, to the White House.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I don't know how it can be described as not that big of a deal. I mean the FBI director for a democrat office had to come out and contradict the very things she's been saying and then savaged her judgement and carefulness. She straight up lied throughout this whole process. It's an aggravating level of arrogance to say the least.

She straight up lied?

Cmon man.

People acting like FBI were complicit is fucking hilarious

 

[whyamihere]

Trump, suggesting that Obama took the morning to get Hillary off?

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

She straight up lied?

Cmon man.

People acting like FBI were complicit is fucking hilarious

Um, yea? She kinda did straight up lie. Most everyone in here agrees on that fact now.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

He doesn't mean literally "snuck" in. I believe he means she chose a time when Americas attention would be focused on the 4th and the holiday weekend to go in and give her interview. Many unsavory new stories are "hidden" on Fridays, long weekends, holidays, etc.

Well the interview happened a week before the 4th. And I'm also sure everyone was able to have a happy 4th. Nobody had their holiday ruined over any timing like this.

 

[Brinbe]

Trump is a stupid piece of garbage.

 

[Rabbi_Vole]

Well the interview happened a week before the 4th. And I'm also sure everyone was able to have a happy 4th. Nobody had their holiday ruined over any timing like this.

I'm not validating trumps statements.. Just clarifying.

 

[e_i]

I better not listen to Mike Malloy tonight. He's a radio host and huge Bernie Bro.

 

[prag16]

Extremely careless? So I can go break a bunch of road laws and possibly kill a person running them over and use this excuse, right?

Yep. This is am embarrassing topic, with the extent of the celebrating going on.

Lots of Hilldawg tinted glasses being worn. She is a horrifyingly poor presidential candidate. Too bad Trump is a dumpster fire. And Johnson will be frozen out of the debates.

 

[Downhome]

Ya gotta admit, not matter who you are for, this latest Trump ad is pretty great...

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/

 

[Risette]

Trump, suggesting that Obama took the morning to get Hillary off?

Man, he really can't take the opportunities given to him. He gets a perfect line to use straight from the FBI ("extremely careless") and he goes on some insane conspiracy theory rant. What.

 

[atr0cious]

She is abominable.

So you do you all have like a word a day calendar and you just can't wait to use it?

 

[KRod-57]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_and_Federal_Records_Act_Amendments_of_2014

Talking about hosting a personal email server in her position and managing "sensitive" government communication on it managed by a private party.

Now sending and receiving non protected Classified emails -is- illegal, even for 1, so I'm again gonna go with surprise if they indeed found any (100 apparently), and imagine there's something else happening, because it does not make sense.

edit: the conclusion of the report is that there is no recommendation for indictment because "they found no intent". To find no intent, you basically have to find that the person in question did not know that said emails contained Classified information, because if you do know, there is obviously intent.

Like a said in my previous post, I do not believe this was an atrocity, I believe it was a mistake.. but at the same time what she did was illegal.

It's not that simple. The FBI and State Department didn't even agree in all cases as to what could actually be marked as classified at the time or after the fact. There's enough grey area here that they need to find intent, and they didn't.



Conservatives built an entire entertainment news industry trying to make up scandals to pin on the Clintons. This effort has a cumulative affect, regardless of the validity of their claims. Republicans first and foremost attempt to invalidate Democrats (e.g. liberals are traitors), especially leaders like Clinton or Obama who can galvanize the Democratic party.

Sanders was barely touched in the primary. Conservatives would have hit the jackpot with Sanders, and Clinton didn't see any reason strategically to go in. Now, I'm not sure by what metric you are using to consider something to be 'kids gloves', but compare this Democratic primary with '08.

The FBI concluded that there were over 100 classified files, out of which 8 contained top secret information. Sure there might be some disagreement over how many files contained classified information, but where there isn't disagreement is whether or not there was any classified information on her private server.

There was classified information, and that is in fact illegal. However, the ruling is since they do not believe this was intentional, they are not going to press charges

You can read what the FBI said about the e-mails here (this is not in any way my personal opinion, this is what the information from the FBI says)
->http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hillary-clinton-email-investigation/86709530/

 

[prag16]

So you do you all have like a word a day calendar and you just can't wait to use it?

Oh, clever. I'm glad it made you mad. Poor Hillary, eh?

Like a said in my previous post, I do not believe this was an atrocity, I believe it was a mistake.. but at the same time what she did was illegal.



The FBI concluded that there were over 100 classified files, out of which 8 contained top secret information. Sure there might be some disagreement over how many files contained classified information, but where there isn't disagreement is whether or not there was any classified information on her private server.

There was classified information, and that is in fact illegal. However, the ruling is since they do not believe this was intentional, they are not going to press charges

You can read what the FBI said about the e-mails here (this is not in any way my personal opinion, this is what the information from the FBI says)
->http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...hillary-clinton-email-investigation/86709530/

This is what's baffling. Apply this logic to countless other situations, and lack of indisputable proof of intent would never be a get out of jail free card.

I guess we can do whatever careless things we want now with no consequence, if ill intent can't be proven.

 

[giga]

Aside from "sneaking into the FBI", like you pointed out, there's nothing "insane" about that statement at all. I dislike Trump as much as next sane American, but c'mon man, we have to admit he's made some competent points here about the system being rigged. Let's not pretend it isn't.

 

[darscot]

Ya gotta admit, not matter who you are for, this latest Trump ad is pretty great...

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/

I have not watched the whole thing but whomever made that add is a moron. She says I never did it with anything MARKED classified. The FBI guy is quoted saying they did contain classified information but he never says they were marked as classified. The whole gotcha never happens in that ad. Did he say she sent emails marked classified or are they just ignoring that little bit of information? The ad is it stands basically states she did not lie.

 

[atr0cious]

Oh, clever. I'm glad it made you mad. Poor Hillary, eh?



This is what's baffling. Apply this logic to countless other situations, and lack of indisputable proof of intent would never be a get out of jail free card.

I guess we can do whatever careless things we want now with no consequence, if ill intent can't be proven.

I'm not the one crying about corruption based on poor reading comprehension, but you do you.

 

[Wilsongt]

Trump's campaign ads basically write themselves at this point.

 

[Plumbob]

So you do you all have like a word a day calendar and you just can't wait to use it?

She is atrocious