Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[MacCruiskeen]

Good luck with that wholly imaginary anti-Fascist alliance of yours, along with Negroponte, Paulson, Rice, Powell, Chertoff, "Jeb", George HW Bush et al (aka The Dream Team):

Yeah well, von Papen and Bruning also thought Hitler was not the best idea. Not that Trump is Hitler, of course. As I say, he's the Kayfabe version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_opposing_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

The State, the corporations, the banks, the military and the media - all gleichgeschaltet. It's a truly mighty display of National Unity. How can the world fail to bow down to it? Especially when it comes in the name of anti-Fascism.

I'm sure you will agree on second thought that all this is a pretty good argument against Clinton, but not a defense of Trump against the fascism charge. And hey, it's not fascism. It's the post-reality version, I'm sure we can also agree. No difference to the incinerated, true, under either option.

.

Jack, one thing I know is that those fuckers have been raining death and destruction on the planet + deliberately impoverishing the working classes everywhere (including in the USA) + lying through their teeth, successfully + stealing elections + anthraxing their political enemies + fomenting murderous racism against Muslims everywhere, + turning the entire Middle East into a hellhole + [continue list ad nauseam], for decades now, with particular zeal and intensity since the day they succeeded in turning reality into a Conspiracy Theory™.



Their current monarch-in-waiting has already announced her intention giving us more-of-the-same, even at the risk of war with Russia. We are informed -- by them -- that she is The Only Safe Option.



Enough, already. We've now had fifteen years of this gruesome spectacle from the Party of National Unity. Even the Nazis only managed twelve.

[MacCruiskeen]

yes and we are Americans...

Congratulations. Do something about it, at long fucking last.

we are Americans

Yup. National Unity. "Furriners - shut up!" [You were saying? About fascism?] And the rest of the planet has to live (or die) with the consequences of your continuing indulgence in your grotesque "elections".

Feel the Fear. Do whatever the hell you want with your "vote", SLaD. You will, anyway.

[seemslikeadream]

I still can't figure what you want us to do?

I don't know where to start, SLaD. I don't think what masquerades as "Democracy" in the US is savable, or worth saving. I would suggest boycotting the "election", but it's far too late for anyone to organise a mass boycott now. I would suggest spoiling your ballot paper, but there is now no such thing as a ballot paper to spoil. So if you twisted my arm, I'd suggest voting Green across the board. And when this grotesque theatre is all over, take a good look at the integrity of the entire "election" process.

Boycotting the election???? What will that do? Elect Trump

no one was EVER going to organize a mass boycott EVER

spoiling my ballot???? YES I VOTE ON A PAPER BALLOT and I am NOT going to spoil it ....my grandmother would roll over in her grave

Voting Green is throwing my vote away ...it would be meaningless....yea that's what I want a meaningless vote

[seemslikeadream]

yes and we are Americans...

Congratulations. Do something about it, at long fucking last.

we are Americans

Yup. National Unity. "Furriners - shut up!" [You were saying? About fascism?] And the rest of the planet has to live (or die) with the consequences of your continuing indulgence in your grotesque "elections".

Feel the Fear. Do whatever the hell you want with your "vote", SLaD. You will, anyway.

I said Americans because you are not.....I'm not here telling you how to live your life ......not for any other reason you care to make up

why don't you all take bush/cheney to the Hague?


help us out here a bit


You have no answers for us....all the suggestions you gave me would change NOTHING...all they would do is elect Trump

apparently that's what you want because that's the advice you are giving me...

You should simply admit you do not want what is best for me...which is perfectly fine

[MacCruiskeen]

Look, slad, follow your own advice: Wait another four or eight (or eighty) years for Dennis Kucinich to come in and Fix Everything.

You have no answers for us

Most remiss of me, I know.

Try this:

1. Buy guillotine.

2. Get guillotine professionally sharpened.

3. Organise a revolutionary socialist mass-movement, persuaded of the evils of imperialism and the need for an immediate end to capitalism (etc.).

4. March on Washington. (Don't forget guillotine.)

[...]

10. World fixed.

(You'll have to fill in the details yourself. I'm busy right now, looking for a nice bunker to keep my family safe in.)

[seemslikeadream]

I know you hate the U.S. government ..I am a human being


you have no answers...and that's a fact

Wait another four or eight (or eighty) years for Dennis Kucinich to come in and Fix Everything.

I never said that nor would I EVER say that......so stop making shit up


I know this is all about your feelings Mac....but you just don't have a viable alternative to the situation if you would adimit that it might make you feel better

I do what I can Mac....that's all I can do

Look, slad, follow your own advice: Wait another four or eight (or eighty) years for Dennis Kucinich to come in and Fix Everything.

You have no answers for us

Most remiss of me, I know.

Try this:

1. Buy guillotine.

2. Get guillotine professionally sharpened.

3. Organise a revolutionary socialist mass-movement, persuaded of the evils of imperialism and the need for an immediate end to capitalism (etc.).

4. March on Washington. (Don't forget guillotine.)

[...]

10. World fixed.

(You'll have to fill in the details yourself. I'm busy right now, looking for a nice bunker to keep my family safe in.)

[dada]

Funny, I was typing up this 'Solution to everything in ten easy steps,' And when I hit post I see you beat me to it, Mac. Mine are kind of a different approach. I have to say, I like yours better.

what's your solution though, dada?

My solution? You caught me off guard, there. No one ever wants to hear my solution.

I have to be at work in a half hour, I'll think about it while I drive, post my succinct, elegant solution when I get back tonight.

Well I drove and I drove, thinking, thinking. I decided that I'm not qualified to have solutions.

So I asked some experts. They have credentials.

The graceful lunar dragon, Bahamut:

bahamut3iconsize2.jpg

He won the most powerful and intelligent dragon of the year award for three years running.


Professor Ryu Hayabusa:

ryu3iconsize2.jpg

He has a Masters in ninja artistry.


And rabbit boss, Timingway:

timingway3iconsize.jpg

Take it away, guys...


Ryu: So we're really doing this.

Bahamut: mm hm.

Timingway: Start us off, Ryu.

Ryu: Okay, boss. Alright, here's The Solution, in ten easy steps.

Bahamut: Succinct and elegant.

Ryu: One. Follow the rules.

Bahamut: Two. Watch tv.

Timingway: Two tv's.

Ryu: And a Bloomberg Terminal.

Bahamut: You don't have one yet?

Timingway: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Ryu: Four...

Bahamut: What happened to three?

Ryu: Oh. Be ashamed of yourself wasn't three?

Timingway: It is now.

Bahamut: Boss is boss.

Ryu: Four. Buy things.

Bahamut: Five. Don't hurt the integrity of the ladders and step-ladders.

Ryu: haha!

Timingway: Who wants to climb a ladder or step-ladder with no integrity.

Ryu: Not I, boss. Alright, Six. Think inside the box.

Bahamut: That's practice.

Timingway: heh. Seven. Follow more rules.

Ryu: Yes boss, yes boss. Beep beep.

Bahamut: Eight. Listen to your parents.

Ryu: What if you don't have any?

Timingway: Ancient wisdom will do.

Bahamut: It's done such a good job solving all our problems so far. Nine. Join the party.

Ryu: Which party?

Timingway: Doesn't matter. Eat your vegetables.

Bahamut: That's ten.

Timingway: With these ten steps, your world will soon be perfect.

Ryu: If it doesn't work out, give us a call. Means your planet is busted beyond repair.

Bahamut: We'll drop by and blow your planet up.

Timingway: Disclose the UFOs.

Ryu: haha!

[8bitagent]

SLAD, no need to feel worried or stressed out. The powers that be have long ago ensured Hillary will win. Voting is just to reshuffle the house and senate, but not to actually
let the public choose a president.

You can even pick up a special commemorative magazine special at the grocery checkout line in a few days!

[Iamwhomiam]

Just make sure you buy your ammo before Tuesday, cause come Wednesday it's gonna get scarce.

[dada]

Just make sure you buy your ammo before Tuesday, cause come Wednesday it's gonna get scarce.

Oh, now that's a bit alarmist. This is America we're talking about. Plenty of ammo to go around.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Voting Green is throwing my vote away ...it would be meaningless....yea that's what I want a meaningless vote

This reminds me of the friends we had in our youth -- those we all knew were gay, but who maintained the hetero charade. When they finally came out, everyone just kind of : 'It's about time.' That whole time nobody had the courage to say, "You know, the sooner you admit to everyone, including yourself, who you are, the happier you'll be." No one considered how much their awkwardly cramped closeted-ness hindered the kind of understanding that's only fostered with honest, open dialogue.

Now, this is not perfectly analogous, because being homosexual is natural and hurts no one. But I gotta do this anyway. For the sake of the board: Just admit you are "with her". This charade of anti-Trumpism is tedious. Literally everybody except the crpyto-fascists on this board is anti-Trump. Making points for their benefit doesn't help your cause. Clinton's campaign includes little else. She'd be better off if she just admitted who she was. Everyone knows anyway. The most solid argument you can make is to just admit you really like her, including literally every single one of her policies, public and private, and will continue to back her up however she may veer or triangulate.

[Morty]

WikiLeaks: DNC and CNN colluded on questions for Trump, Cruz
By Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) • 11/6/16 10:38 PM


Newly released emails from WikiLeaks suggest that the Democratic National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions in April to be asked of then-Republican primary candidate Donald Trump in an upcoming interview.

In an email to DNC colleagues on April 25 with the headline "Trump Questions for CNN," a DNC official with the email username DillonL@dnc.org asked for ideas for an interview to be conducted by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

"Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed. ... Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow."

The sender of the email would seem to be DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon, who was identified in previous reports of DNC emails released by WikiLeaks in July.

Several hours after the first email was sent, Dillon said in a follow-up email that the interview had been cancelled, "as of now," but shared a list of questions thought up by the DNC that she said could be used for the next interview.

Some of the questions included: "Who helped you write the foreign policy speech you're giving tomorrow? Which advisors specifically did you talk to? What advice did they give you? Did they give you any advice that you chose not to take?" Others explored Saudi Arabia's alleged involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a pre-preemptive strike against North Korea and court martials for members of the military who didn't follow orders.

A separate email from Dillon that same day said "CNN is looking for questions" for then-GOP primary candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and "maybe a couple on" former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

CNN and the DNC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WikiLeaks dumped 8,263 new hacked DNC emails Sunday evening, the second batch released after the first was leaked in July. Those emails showed DNC officials plotting to undermine then-Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders in favor of now-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The ensuing controversy led to then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's ouster.

CNN has already dealt with a WikiLeaks email controversy related to the 2016 election. Last month the network parted ways with interim head of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile after emails revealed she had funneled debate questions to Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton in advance of two primary debates.

LINK

[Morty]

Is he saying Obama thus ran protection for Hillary by sending a few emails her way using non-secure email?

The ONLY Reason Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted: OBAMA Also Guilty Of Emailgate Crimes
Obama’s Conflict Tanked the Clinton E-mail Investigation — As Predicted

Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.

ANDREW C. McCARTHY | The National Review
(ACM served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York)

‘How is this not classified?”
— Huma Abedin

So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Thanks to Friday’s FBI document dump — 189 more pages of reports from the Bureau’s year-long foray (“investigation” would not be the right word) into the Clinton e-mail scandal — we now know for certain what I predicted some eight months ago here at NRO: Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest.

As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.

To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.

Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.

Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconductClinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton.

Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.

In fact, in any other case — i.e., in a case that involved any other unindicted co-conspirator — it would be the Justice Department itself introducing the Obama-Clinton e-mails into evidence.

As noted above, the FBI told Huma Abedin that the name she did not recognize in the e-mail with Clinton was an Obama alias. For the agents to do this ran afoul of investigative protocols. The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.

But of course, that’s only a problem if there is actually going to be a case.

In this instance, it was never going to happen. The president’s involvement guaranteed that . . . so why worry about letting Abedin in on the president’s involvement?

Abedin was startled by this revelation. No wonder: People in her lofty position know that direct presidential communications with high-ranking officials who have national-security and foreign-policy responsibilities are presumptively classified.

To convey this, and thus convey the legal significance of Obama’s involvement, I can’t much improve on what I told you back in February. When the Obama Justice Department prosecuted retired general David Petraeus, the former CIA director, for mishandling classified information, government attorneys emphasized that this top-secret intelligence included notes of Petraeus’s “discussions with the president of the United States of America.”

Petraeus pled guilty because he knew the case against him was a slam-dunk. He grasped that trying to defend himself by sputtering, Clinton-style, that “the notes were not marked classified” would not pass the laugh test. As I elaborated in the February column, when you’re a national-security official engaging in and making a written record of policy and strategy conversations with the president, the lack of classified markings on the documents you’ve created

[does] not alter the obvious fact that the information they contain [is] classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.

Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526. As I’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama issued this directive: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the damage to national security that disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.

Abedin knew, as the FBI agents who were interviewing her surely knew, that at least some of Obama’s pseudonymous exchanges with Clinton had to have crossed into these categories. They were born classified. As I said in February, this fact would profoundly embarrass Obama if the e-mails were publicly disclosed.

Hundreds of times, despite Clinton’s indignant insistence that she never sent or received classified information, the State Department has had to concede that her e-mails must be redacted or withheld from public disclosure because they contain information that is patently classified. But this is not a concession the administration is willing to make regarding Obama’s e-mails.

That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton.

Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security. It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels.

This is also why the Justice Department and the FBI effectively rewrote the relevant criminal statute in order to avoid applying it to Clinton. In his public statements about Clinton, Obama has stressed that she is an exemplary public servant who would never intentionally harm the United States. In rationalizing their decision not to indict Clinton, Justice Department officials (in leaks to the Washington Post) and the FBI director (in his press conference and congressional testimony) similarly stressed the lack of proof that she intended to harm the United States.

As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, however, the operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States. It merely requires proof of gross negligence. This is entirely lawful and appropriate, since we’re talking about a law that can apply only to government officials who have a special duty to preserve secrecy and who have been schooled in the proper handling of classified information. Yet the Justice Department frivolously suggested that applying the law exactly the way it is written — something the Justice Department routinely tells judges they must do — would, in Clinton’s case, potentially raise constitutional problems.

Alas, the Justice Department and the FBI have to take that indefensible position here. Otherwise, Clinton would not be the only one in legal jeopardy.

I will end with what I said eight months ago:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

LINK

[seemslikeadream]

My magazine headline reads

Fascist Party Looses Election Biggly Even Though the FBI Tried oh so Very Hard to Get Trump Elected

Mercer/Bannon/Breitbart/Giuliani/rogue FBI/Military/Kallstrom/Schweitzer........FASCIST LOOSERS

So my final words to them are this: You are wrong. Everything you believe is wrong. It isn't just that it conflicts with my ideology. It's that you are factually, demonstrably wrong, about Hillary Clinton, about Barack Obama, about Donald Trump, and your candidate consistently, flagrantly lies. He is utter shit. The fact that you don't care about this makes you shit. You should be whipped out of the public sphere like vermin-infested dogs until you only occupy the hinterlands and can live in your compounds of shit. The rest of us are done with you.

I am going into this election with my eyes wide open to my candidate's flaws. That makes me more honorable than the lot of you combined. So take your pathetic hatred of everything that has helped America progress and fuck yourself with it.

Adios, motherfuckers. The country is about to tell you to fuck off. And when next Tuesday is over, crawl back to your deplorable lives, eat shit, and disappear.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/11/ ... wrong.html

SLAD, no need to feel worried or stressed out. The powers that be have long ago ensured Hillary will win. Voting is just to reshuffle the house and senate, but not to actually
let the public choose a president.

You can even pick up a special commemorative magazine special at the grocery checkout line in a few days!

[coffin_dodger]

slad link:

So my final words to them are this: You are wrong. Everything you believe is wrong. It isn't just that it conflicts with my ideology. It's that you are factually, demonstrably wrong, about Hillary Clinton, about Barack Obama, about Donald Trump, and your candidate consistently, flagrantly lies. He is utter shit. The fact that you don't care about this makes you shit. You should be whipped out of the public sphere like vermin-infested dogs until you only occupy the hinterlands and can live in your compounds of shit. The rest of us are done with you.

I am going into this election with my eyes wide open to my candidate's flaws. That makes me more honorable than the lot of you combined. So take your pathetic hatred of everything that has helped America progress and fuck yourself with it.

Adios, motherfuckers. The country is about to tell you to fuck off. And when next Tuesday is over, crawl back to your deplorable lives, eat shit, and disappear.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2016/11/ ... wrong.html

That you are blinded to the sheer hatred emanating from this piece of writing is shocking. I doubt you'll enjoy reaping what you have sown.