somewhere between FDR and Nixon
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
FBI will not recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Muzy72
- Start date
- Status
somewhere between FDR and Nixon
timetokill
Banned
Heh. Good luck finding a presidential candidate who isn't "arrogant" (but this is why people will tell you you're sexist, because you call it "confidence" when a man shows it and "arrogance" when a woman does).
You should really watch Gary Johnson talk. About anything. Anything at all. The man is perpetually stoned, and he's not the type of person who comes of "smart" when he's stoned.
I'm not going to vote for Hillary. She's just too slimy for me to stomach. I'm going to have to do more research on Johnson and Stein and other possible 3rd party candidates.
Thanks for voting for Trump. Don't complain when he's POTUS.
timetokill
Banned
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
A vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Therefor that's one less vote for Hillary that could be used against Trump.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
3rd party vote is your right, and screw anyone who says otherwise. However, I would urge you to keep in mind this is the first time in decades that there's been a chance to flip the Supreme Court in a more progressive direction, and factor that into your choice.
CaptainofIndustry
Member
TheLaughingStock
Member
She's dishonest because she suggests that Obama's record proves the contributions that he received do not matter. Correspondingly, Hillary argues what she's received to date doesn't make a difference in terms of what she'll do for you. Big time lies even more egregious than her email episode. Very sad.
Moreover, she's corrupt because she's taking money from people hailing from firms accused of multiple felonies by whistleblowers like Alayne Fleischmann and Richard M. Bowen III. The kinds of firms that will target minorities for financial gain aka the folks she's suppose to champion. Some of her top contributors include Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase...where the aforementioned whistleblowers used to work. Hillary shouldn't be accepting any verbal and/or financial endorsements from such organizations' PACs, subsidiaries, affiliates, individual members, employees, immediate families, and owners. Just like if Trump or any of aforementioned donated to her campaign and she refused/returned contributions citing that too often he tells it like it is.
The really sad part though is the Democratic base hurting in 2016, but voting for the D team anyway because that's the best they can afford to do. I think they're very poor gamblers because they got played by people who surely identified as Democrats as well as Republicans leading up to the crisis. Plus, being left behind in the aftermath while rich whites received an avalanche of gov't assistance and continue to take a predominant share of the gains. Apparently, when you treat people like 2nd class citizens it nets you a 50% approval rating. Bodes well for Hillary and Trump.
Orniletter
Banned
Because Clinton, a 68 years old grandmother, was obviously 100% aware of the risks involved with using a private server.
How the fuck can you pin this on her when it was a failure of her It division / the people that are responsible for the back-end of communication ?
She isn't supposed to have a masters degree in It and know literally everything about modern communication.
Tranqueris
Banned
I feel like at this point the only answers you're gonna get to this are that open secrets link, that 13 minute video, some rant about speech transcripts that implies she's corrupt, and a rant about how she always lies.
There's totally a few more that I missed but it's generally the same regurgitated nonsense at this point.
Freezie KO
Banned
Tons of politicians are guilty of using private servers. Hopefully the public nature of this potential indictment puts an end to the practice though. From the Cold War to Vietnam to Iraq, the eventual declassification of documents and FOIA requests are crucial for our modern democracy.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Karl Rove? Is that you?
What the heck are you trying to say or argue against? So confused here.
Oh sweet jesus. It doesn't even matter where you stand on the end result of this thing, this is a cringe inducing post.
IrishNinja
Member
cmon kams, we finally lost huelen again, don't carry this torch
adamsappel
Member
That conservatives screaming for Hillary's head never gave a shit about 22 million government emails stored on and deleted from private servers hosted by the RNC, nor cared that Secretaries of State in previous Republican administrations had done the same.
That people with low-level security clearances equate the restrictions they are under with the expectations of high-level officials. I have no doubt that if they shared their classified information with their mistresses they would receive more than two years probation and a $100K fine, as happened to David Patraeus. It sucks that favoritism and privilege are extended to higher-ups in similar situations, but the complaints are akin to the receptionist griping that the CEO gets to come in at 10, when they had to be at their desk at 8.
timetokill
Banned
Nope. A vote for a third party is a signal to politicians that they aren't representing you and are leaving votes on the table.
Megadragon15
Member
That only happens when there are real consequences that a third party vote can cause. Other than Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Perot, and Nader, most third party candidate votes amount to nothing.
EatinOlives
Member
I don't think any politician ever has looked at 3rd party votes that way.
I can't believe we had an acting FBI Director say this in a press conference
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," Comey said. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
Give me a break
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," Comey said. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
Give me a break
Then vote third party in local elections. Don't take the chance to fuck up SCOTUS with Trump appointed seats.
It's more like voter turnout. Third party votes are lost votes, nobody cares why one votes for a third party just that they did.
Nobody gave 2 shits why people voted for Nader, only that it might have cost Gore the election.
But you probably get a little sticker that says you voted for a third party, so there's that.
What I never understood about all this was how it took years after she resigned as SOS for people to take notice of her private email server? Like, wasn't she regularly corresponding with the president, the cabinet, Congress, the FBI, world leaders...?
For one, getting an email from hillary@clintonemail.com (or whatever) is going to look pretty suspicious compared to clinton@sos.us.gov. How would they know they were really corresponding with her and not some random? And if they were the ones emailing her, wouldn't they ask for and then use her .gov email?
For one, getting an email from hillary@clintonemail.com (or whatever) is going to look pretty suspicious compared to clinton@sos.us.gov. How would they know they were really corresponding with her and not some random? And if they were the ones emailing her, wouldn't they ask for and then use her .gov email?
timetokill
Banned
So then it sometimes happens. Okay. Better than nothing.
Maybe you're right. That would explain how the tea party somehow snuck up on the GOP.
I vote for whoever I think is best. Me not voting for Clinton or Trump isn't a vote for the other side, which is the whole point. If they were literally the only two people on the ballot and I couldn't vote for anybody else I simply wouldn't vote, because I don't think either one is fit to lead.
So in other words, people cared very much why people voted for Nader, if it cost the Democrats an election.
Saying that parties don't care why people aren't voting for them is insane. Their whole purpose is to understand that and create as wide a tent as possible.
This thread has taught me there are a fucking shitload of conservative Trump fans in the closest at GAF. Way more than I would have imagined.
I also just lol every single time I see "I'm a Hillary supporter, but..."
Just makes me think back to that Tyrion quote from GoT. Nothing you say before "but" matters.
I also just lol every single time I see "I'm a Hillary supporter, but..."
Just makes me think back to that Tyrion quote from GoT. Nothing you say before "but" matters.
Best part is, the vocal young liberal GAF base are the ones ready to post every moment, but least likely to vote. Probably most likely to waste a vote on a 3rd party based on "principle" even if it hurts the chances of pushing forward policies they want (if the liberal candidate loses)
Meanwhile, closet, silent republican voters are most likely to vote directly for the candidate they want without rationalizing the vote away
And this is how trump gets elected
Fox_Mulder
Rockefellers. Skull and Bones. Microsoft. Al Qaeda. A Cabal of Bankers. The melting point of steel. What do these things have in common? Wake up sheeple, the landfill wasn't even REAL!
What if the fbi is corrupted?
I mean, this can be true without making it false that your vote could cause Trump to be elected. The two aren't contradictory.
I'm starting to think people really don't understand the significance of the Supreme Court. It trumps all, even if you don't like Hillary. If you are for progress, she's the only choice this time around. You don't have to feel great about voting for her, but you should feel satisfied in the knowledge that she will appoint people that are not Antonin Scalia.
The direction of the Supreme Court, potentially for an entire generation, is far more important than the Presidency or a well-meant but effectively pointless vote for a third party.
The direction of the Supreme Court, potentially for an entire generation, is far more important than the Presidency or a well-meant but effectively pointless vote for a third party.
Cigarette Smoking Man has people inside the FBI.
can someone please photoshop her into the syndicate? lmao
mercenar1e
Member
Has it crossed anyone's mind that the republicans won't confirm anyone to the Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton? shes going to get even less done under her administration than Obama.
StopMakingSense
Member
That won't happen.
That would be too politically risky for the Republicans. If Clinton wins, especially if she wins by a large margin (which she has a better chance of thanks to electoral college dynamics) she would have an undeniable mandate.
mercenar1e
Member
82 of Obamas appointees have been blocked and the republicans aren't even confirming Garland. Yeah i bet they'll work with Hillary to ensure that the republican platform is utterly destroyed for the next 30-40 years.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Because Hillary is the most well-known Democrat, it was inevitable that without viable new blood to compete, without an Obama 2.0, that she was going to get the nomination.
Anyway, my expectation is that Hillary isn't going to be a very exciting candidate, not terribly inspirational, but I expect that she can at least do well enough to get two terms. She just needs to keep her nose clean.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The probability the Dems retake the Senate is quite high, getting a 60 majority though will be really difficult (Edit: Actually, i'm not even sure it's possible, lol). I think it's time to give up the cloture filibuster, or at the very least require it to actually be one.
Dems controlling the Executive and Senate will allow for some changes, above all the Supreme Court nominations.
This is an interesting quote that is easy to take out of context. That he said "similar" circumstances can imply a lot, but it also flies in the face of the facts he put forward in the paragraphs above the Statement.Comey said:
Also, what are 'similar' circumstances? Someone authorized to send classified material to someone else who was authorized to receive it via an unapproved device (i.e. smartphone), except they found that the e-mail was intentionally deleted therefore making such an individual face indictment? I feel like he needed to put more emphasis here, but had none, and knew Hillary haters would love to disregard the full scope of the Statement and just focus on this part.
I almost feel like it was more of a personal comment than anything else because, again, it doesn't really comply with the rest of the Statement.
Jacksinthe
Banned
A) The bullshit in this thread when criticism is thrown at Hillary assailing users with "thanks for voting for Trump" is asinine. Leave it to Democrats to show nobody eats their own better. Grow up. If you can't understand criticism and level the Trump card at people, you are of no sound mind to choose your own fucking food, let alone the next President. Stop the bullshit adolescence.
B) Voting 3rd party isn't throwing away a vote and helping either candidate. Thank EVERYONE interested enough to vote because the amount of people who care enough to vote at all is a fucking PITTANCE of the population. More people NEED to vote. Period. Perhaps we wouldn't be left choosing between Hillary, Trump and the 3rd party nominees we have if more people were informed and joined the process. Perhaps we would have far better candidates if everyone spent time educating themselves and getting involved, holding fire to the feet of the leaders who do stupid shit instead of throwing shit at each other.
Sigh. PLEASE stop the childish rhetoric. Its tiring to read and if that is all you are concerned about with this whole thing you REALLY need to step back and look at what is actually going on. Be nice to each other, FFS.
That being fucking said: Topic-
For me, I'm less concerned that Hillary did any of this. She deserves criticism, yes. But the much larger issue is that this sort of insecure communication is damn near commonplace in government.
That is FAR FAR larger of a charge than singling out Hillary. The Hillary card is nothing more than a Republican hunt for blood. Period.
At this point it doesn't matter who is singled out - you either go after EVERYONE or NO ONE.
The more people do it, the more reckless it will become. That's a given. We see that EVERYWHERE. Gaming side is showing that in spades right now with the whole CSGO Gambling bullshit. That's what happens when you get comfy. You take greater and greater risks.
Indicting Hillary wouldn't solve the problem and it was stupid to even try, IMO. I'm not being a shill for Hillary, so those few here on the right don't misunderstand - going after her alone won't stop the misuse and clear lack of handling of sensitive info. The Government needs to crack down on this or it will continue to snowball. That is what we need to focus on. Hillary's black eye will go away but this is a problem on a much larger scale that needs to be rectified.
PEACE
B) Voting 3rd party isn't throwing away a vote and helping either candidate. Thank EVERYONE interested enough to vote because the amount of people who care enough to vote at all is a fucking PITTANCE of the population. More people NEED to vote. Period. Perhaps we wouldn't be left choosing between Hillary, Trump and the 3rd party nominees we have if more people were informed and joined the process. Perhaps we would have far better candidates if everyone spent time educating themselves and getting involved, holding fire to the feet of the leaders who do stupid shit instead of throwing shit at each other.
Sigh. PLEASE stop the childish rhetoric. Its tiring to read and if that is all you are concerned about with this whole thing you REALLY need to step back and look at what is actually going on. Be nice to each other, FFS.
That being fucking said: Topic-
For me, I'm less concerned that Hillary did any of this. She deserves criticism, yes. But the much larger issue is that this sort of insecure communication is damn near commonplace in government.
That is FAR FAR larger of a charge than singling out Hillary. The Hillary card is nothing more than a Republican hunt for blood. Period.
At this point it doesn't matter who is singled out - you either go after EVERYONE or NO ONE.
The more people do it, the more reckless it will become. That's a given. We see that EVERYWHERE. Gaming side is showing that in spades right now with the whole CSGO Gambling bullshit. That's what happens when you get comfy. You take greater and greater risks.
Indicting Hillary wouldn't solve the problem and it was stupid to even try, IMO. I'm not being a shill for Hillary, so those few here on the right don't misunderstand - going after her alone won't stop the misuse and clear lack of handling of sensitive info. The Government needs to crack down on this or it will continue to snowball. That is what we need to focus on. Hillary's black eye will go away but this is a problem on a much larger scale that needs to be rectified.
PEACE
This was standard procedure for the state dept since the advent of email. The big difference is that Clinton, unlike her predecessors, actually used email heavily. Prior to Obama the three branches of the elected government had the IT wherewithal of grandmothers using AOL discs.
That is the real point here. Clinton did what she did out of convenience, not dishonesty, and the problem with this still largely exists. There needs to be a cabinet position created to oversee IT and ensure latest defensive measures are being employed and followed without compromising productivity.
A Clinton win likely carries the Senate with it, giving her a free path for political appointments.
Also, the Republicans have confirmed Obama appointees, the just throw a fit for a while over it.
Lastly, compromise always eventually happens. The recurring budget crises have regularly been avoided at the last minute. Would you rather see this kind of continued adversarial politicking or a body dominated by conservatives and lead by Trump?
You should probably do some research then.
Johnson wants to destroy all social safety nets and is in a party who argues against the existence of public parking meters and tickets.
Stein believes homeopathy is as valid as science based medicine and that all nuclear energy production should be stopped. She, and her entire party, are anti-science nuts.
Clinton meanwhile has been the focus of GOP attack for 30 years and still there is no proof of the corruption claimed. You would think that if she was so "slimy" that something would stick eventually when faced with federal probes on a regular basis.
DeadlyVirus
Member
So you're telling me that the government has not IT experts.
Now that's not true and funny that someone thinks this is true...
Yeah, anyone saying this has not worked in a government field at all.
neurosisxeno
Member
"It's a series of tubes!"
Karsticles
Member
They can't keep the spot vacant for 4 whole years.
How in the world did you get that?
The elected branches of government lack a clear and well regulated system. The administration prior to Obama had no real interest in these tools while governing and that produced this lack of meaningful guidance and procedural infrastructure. The use of modern communication technology demands a more structured system for elected officials and their appointees.
In 2008 the government had no regulations obligating that Clinton restrict all communications to federal mail servers. In 2008 the government lacked the ability to offer a contemporary all in one device comparable to s blackberry. The iPhone had been out for six months at that point and the government couldn't mach a device that the iPhone would kill within the next year.
This is what needs to be addressed. We can't just write this off as a Clinton problem or a State Dept. problem. There needs to be a standardized set of strictly enforced ruled coupled with aggressive pursuit of emerging technologies. The three letter agencies do it just fine, so why do we shrug and let the elected officials overseeing them work in such a muddled, half measured system?
- Status