Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

[mentalgongfu2]

I just don't get how the Democrats can at once focus all their energy calling Trump a sex criminal whether they have good reason or not, but then ignore the fact Bill Clinton has a long trail of accusers
and that the current FBI investigation into Hillary was spurred on by Anthony Weiner's sending rape fantasy/sex pix to a 15 year old. (with one of the images being his erect bulge next to his sleeping toddler son)
The social media Democrats talk about this bogus Jerry Springer produced child rape claim, but even if that had any sort of credibility it'd lead to Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein.

It's nott that hard to get. Because neither Bill Clinron nor Anthony Weiner are currently running for president, and the accusations against Bill that the conservatives trumpet as fact have never gained any currency outside of their small world. And even if they did, that only puts the Clintons on equal misogyonistic footing with Trump at this point. If Trump mentions Mena, Arkansas in the next six days I might believe he is for real...otherwise he's likely just a different kind of crook.

[peartreed]

The mass media and the social media have effectively laid bare the inside stories that condemn both of the corrupt candidates currently vying for the presidency.

Partisans in both main parties have been left to cover up, mop up and make up excuses for their ignoble chosen icon and divert the largely disaffected and inattentive voting public to superficial spins that might con them into casting their vote anyway. The frenzy of hyperbole has mostly whipped up the lunatic fringe.

It looks like right and left have created a split almost down the middle and divided the country against itself. A polarized public is torn in political paralysis. Either outcome is likely to ignite extremist retaliation. And we face another civil battle.

The form that conflict takes is crucial, and the whole country has to be reminded of its common interest in peaceful cohabitation with the opposing block and its leaders. In this case it will be a challenge because the fundamental institutions of the republic are also in conflict with one another and divided along party lines.

While there is still a brief window before most voters cast a ballot, the serious question comes down to which candidate is likely best to lead a reconciliation with the losing side. The winner will have the immediate task of repairing the rift.

It’s an ugly choice between a vulgarian megalomaniac and a corrupted elitist.

From my perspective the inherent qualities of a woman tip the scales in favor of the more practiced politician, one who has already had to compromise and coexist in turmoil while still, sometimes hypocritically, striving for the overriding good of all. Nurture should still be in her nature.

A self-absorbed tyrant is unlikely to heal the wounds to his ego from we the people who opposed him. I’d take my chances with the lady in charge.

[Freitag]

Nurture should still be in her nature.

By all accounts she is a nasty piece of work. Secret Service agents hate being assigned to her and consider it a punishment. Lawyers she worked with when she was younger say she had absolutely no sense of ethics, considered rules as mere obstacles to be worked around. She is not the charming type of psychopath her husband is; she's the lower type, power-hungry and reptilian.

[Nordic]

Also they have no interest in repairing any rift. Their power exists only because of the rifts. The LAST thing they want is for the citizens of this country to suddenly get along and unite. It would literally be extremely dangerous for them.

I wish people understood that. The disdain and scorn people in most of my universe rain down upon Trump supporters is the nastiest, most condescending, elitist shit you can imagine. It's no different from racism, but without the race aspect. The Trump supporters I know actually don't fit the model of the banjo-twanging rabid redneck retards that the Snooty Dems think they are.

If we ever figured out how to quit taking the bait, we'd be dangerous and could actually kick the nasty warmingering, child-molesting sickos out and start over.

But we won't. We'd rather hate on each other. It's more fun and easier.

[Iamwhomiam]

Oh, I agree she's the best in the field, but she cannot become elected as President this term. That is the truth, too. If you are in a swing state and you vote for Stein, you're assuring the election of one of the two, Trump or Clinton. And it might seem to some that by voting Green in a swing state you care not at all about the makeup of the future Supreme Court, which imo, is more important than the election of a 4 or 8 year term of office.

Edited to add,

I forgot to thank you Rory, for responding to my questions. I appreciate you doing so, while I do not agree with your reasoned decision, due only to your living in a contested state.

Edited once again to add,

I would say that Trump would be scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Clinton's simply the dregs.

But one thing that argument overlooks:

Your vote doesn't matter one bit in "battle" between Hillary and Trump. Not at all.



Face it we have no control over Trump/Hillary. There's never a "perfect time" to vote third party if you keep thinking that some day there will be. It's like waiting for the perfect time to tell your spouse you want a divorce. It's just gotta happen. Just do it.

Silly Nordic, every vote matters! 'cept for those that go uncounted, of course, or those disqualified. If I were to vote for Clinton, it would add one more popular vote to her tally.

But this is what I wrote, more or less, as to why I'll be voting for Stein:

But where it might actually count is in getting the Green Party at 5% at which time it becomes a legit, recognized party and automatically gets federal funding next time.

It is indeed a perfect time for me to vote for Stein, as I feel sure Clinton will carry NYS and does not need my vote to win our state's popular vote. As I wrote earlier, if NY was a contested red-blue state I would vote for Clinton. I admit, I could be unpleasantly surprised by a Trump win.

Lastly, Nordic, there's always a perfect time to seek a divorce. Too many just ignore it, preferring to live in a fantasy. Procrastinators, in general.

Everyone is entitled to be wrong, you know, and everyone is entitled to their opinions, wrong as they might be. As we've seen this election cycle, more so than ever before, the truth matters little to many, even here, where we see 8bit point to Bill as though he was a contender and complain that democrats aren't crying about his indiscretions as if he was, and refuse to admit that Democrats, (most humans, really), really do have good reason to decry Trump's sexual crimes, ("...whether they have good reason or not...").

"I just don't get how the Democrats can at once focus all their energy calling Trump a sex criminal whether they have good reason or not, but then ignore the fact Bill Clinton has a long trail of accusers..."

Next, we have clairvoyance, "The social media Democrats talk about this bogus Jerry Springer produced child rape claim, but even if that had any sort of credibility it'd lead to Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein."

You know it's bogus, 8bit? Because it is about Trump's sexual perversions and not Clinton's? Seems to me it would be wise to investigate the possible rape of a 13 year old by Donald Trump regardless of where it leads, or to whom it involves, though it would be a plus to suck in other rapists of the young and old, like Jefferey and Bill. As long as it finds Trump guilty of child rape, if he is indeed guilty, I don't care who else gets sucked in, but would be pleased to see as many rapists of children and women get what they deserve, whoever they might be.

What's the matter, 8bit, can't you write 'Trump' and 'rape' in the same sentence?

For a Stein voter you sure seem to be selling the Trump brand. And in my experience, that makes you unique among Stein supporters.

It makes one wonder just how these bizarre imaginings of some that are in such conflict with reality come about and then, there it was, right at the bottom of the comment:

As much as I've always disliked Fox, Drudge, and Rush they seem to be some of the only ones pointing out all this (alleged Clinton) corruption.

With no mention Trump's well known (alleged) corruption, the uni; his well known, through his own braggadocio, mistreatment of women, probably criminal, his not releasing his taxes; or that he's been accused of raping a 13 year old. Yes, let's talk about Bill Clinton. This is news, right 8bit?

Meanwhile, still not a single word of condemnation for Trump from you in any RI 2016 election thread, even though we know much about his ongoing illegal and immoral acts. Very strange indeed. But not at all strange for a Trump supporter.

And then we have D&C's cruel foolishness, victimizing victims of mass murder: Sandy Hook was 100% fake, which is grossly untrue. It was as real as reality gets.

Novem5er, I'll respond later today.

[Iamwhomiam]

This analysis is from a Hillary supporter: Do I Really Need to Worry About Hillary’s Emails? Yes. She Should Be Indicted. (Full Form)

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

by Andrew C. McCarthy July 5, 2016

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.

It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

This article is from last January. In July Comey said Clinton hadn't committed any crimes, in relation to her handling of state secrets.

What's bullshit is the claim that the FBI modified the wording of the legislation. It's untrue, as the record of this legislation's modifications and amendments clearly shows: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter37&edition=prelim

The article details the legislation and why the FBI didn't prosecute Clinton.
Trump is Wrong, Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be Charged Based on What We Know Now
by Dan Abrams | 10:51 am, January 29th, 2016

The reality as I see it is one that won’t entirely satisfy either side — that based on what we know today, she likely did violate government procedures and rules, but not the law.

(That remains true today ~ Iam)

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/

Edited to add,

I just came across this, an update, after the new email discovery, by the same source:
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/despite-bombshell-new-emails-hillary-clinton-probably-still-didnt-commit-a-crime/

[Nordic]

I know that wasn't addressed to me but I'll respond anyway.

It's easy to sound off more about Hillary and Bill's crimes and corruption, and not mention Trump's for a couple of reasons.

A. Trump is very likely not going to be president. Hillary very likely is.

B. Trump is a small time, mostly local slumlord and used-car salesman type with almost zero political power. The Clintons are in bed with every government around the world, certainly all of the criminal ones, have very REAL political power, to the point that the very Deep State of the US, the true Masters of the Universe, actively support them, including the Gulf States, Israel, the CIA, the corporate/government media, the Military Industrial Complex ...

Trump is an ant. The Clintons are an enormous Goliath of a machine.

The Clintons will have the power to destroy the world. Trump will not. He'll barely be allowed to have training wheels. On his tricycle.

The US with Hillary is charge, is terrifying. With Trump in charge it's a clown car.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

A good friend of mine believes Hillary and Lynch will be arrested tomorrow and that the collapse of the DNC is imminent. Some are claiming a silent coup has taken place and that evidence connecting Hillary directly to the Lolita Express (not just Bill) will be released. The next week will be interesting to say the least.

[Iamwhomiam]

Yeah, well you think sandy hook was fake, so you're unbelievable.

"Some are claiming..." Who, is "claiming..." what's the source of their deep, dark knowledge?

Oh I get it, you watched that BS Pieczenik video. See how rumors get started?

[Nordic]

A good friend of mine believes Hillary and Lynch will be arrested tomorrow and that the collapse of the DNC is imminent. Some are claiming a silent coup has taken place and that evidence connecting Hillary directly to the Lolita Express (not just Bill) will be released. The next week will be interesting to say the least.

I've seen that rumor as well. Wouldn't that be a marvelous thing.

[Iamwhomiam]

4 eyes have seen the rumor, yet no link.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

A good friend of mine believes Hillary and Lynch will be arrested tomorrow and that the collapse of the DNC is imminent. Some are claiming a silent coup has taken place and that evidence connecting Hillary directly to the Lolita Express (not just Bill) will be released. The next week will be interesting to say the least.

I've seen that rumor as well. Wouldn't that be a marvelous thing.

People in the media right now are flabbergasted, you can just tell. I am fairly certain we are about to see something extraordinary.

[Iamwhomiam]

Nurture should still be in her nature.

By all accounts she is a nasty piece of work. Secret Service agents hate being assigned to her and consider it a punishment. Lawyers she worked with when she was younger say she had absolutely no sense of ethics, considered rules as mere obstacles to be worked around. She is not the charming type of psychopath her husband is; she's the lower type, power-hungry and reptilian.

"By all accounts..." and no links, so the only account we're getting is Freitag's

"Lawyers say..." And no lawyers quoted, so Freitag says...

You do know your psychopaths. Your going to vote for one called Trump.

But you've been fooled by the lowest type of lizard's camouflage.

I suppose you support his efforts to intimidate voters, too, considering you're voting Trump.

[semper occultus]

The disdain and scorn people in most of my universe rain down upon Trump supporters is the nastiest, most condescending, elitist shit you can imagine.

I don't need to engage any imagination at all....the deluge of invective that has been aimed at Brexit voters for daring to inconvenience all the important , worthwhile, revenue-earning people who like flying to Barcelona for the weeked & hiring cheap child-minders from Transylvania is quite enough ....

...imagine what it'll be like if he frickn' WINS....

[Jerky]

It's getting to be kind of pathetic, watching how easily people I thought might be able to better resist it be buffeted about by the hot air being blown by the long-lived and well exposed quasi-fascist right-wing propaganda wind machine like so many empty sacks of potato chips.

Beyond the fever swamp of the Internet and the incestuous confines of AM Talk Radio, its TV version at FOX News, and the piles of anti-liberal books that get published by the likes of Regnery and that ilk (another doorstopper from Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity for Christmas, dad?) who publish books totemistically, not to be read, but simply to EXIST and be waved in the dreaded liberal enemy's collective face as proof of their perfidy, the truth is that Hillary Clinton's fan club is rather jam-packed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_H ... dorsements

Furthermore, whatever you think of her politics, there exists a near endless stream of individuals of ALL political stripes who are more than willing to share their experience of Hillary Clinton as being an intelligent, resourceful, generous, friendly, witty, emotionally invested, and yes CARING human being, a fair-dealing legislative partner unafraid to take part in the rough and tumble, but also knowing when to cede ground when such is reasonable and necessary. She has also gone out of her way, throughout her entire life, to foster life-long connections with people outside the world of politics and policy, real people, "little people" who couldn't possibly be of any cynical use to her. And if you think she started making friends with these people four decades ago just so she would be able to point to them for some hypothetical future run for office... I don't know what to tell you.

She has spent her life in public service and party politics. Think about that... there is simply no way that anyone could do that without making instant enemies out of a vast swath of the population, no matter what. THAT is where these stories of "Secret Service agents hate her guts" and "oh she was mean to a chef one time what a bitch" come from. You HAVE to take this into account.

The bottom line for me is that the people who know Hillary Clinton best are among her greatest admirers. The people who know Trump best are among his greatest detractors. That tells me something, right there.

J