Skip to toolbar
 
HomeNewsCan’t believe I agree with Jen Rubin today!
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Linda Thieman

Hey, excellent first post, Fleur de Lisa! Can’t say that I could possibly agree with you more than I already do, which is completely. And what’s more, we now have to go to FauxNews in order to get some actual version of the truth. Down the rabbit hole, indeed.

new2this

Agreed! They are really pushing the envelope in asking voters to choose between the lesser of these two evils.

bebimbob

The clintonistas are already planting bs spin articles in the MSM. See the Huffpost for a bs article on Comey’s multiple servers statement.

gustogirl

Heard a new one at TOP: State dpt computer system is ancient and undependable so the only reasonable thing to do is get your own server/devices. I append: and put in in your basement and then move it to your “charity” headquarters.

loneaudience
loneaudience

Great first post. My advice: don’t vote for either Clinton or Trump if they are the official nominees. There are other choices.

loneaudience
loneaudience

Cthulhu 2016
Why Vote For A Lesser Evil?

Cthulhu2016.png
phatkhat

Now THAT would be a great bumper sticker!

CaliforniaPat
CaliforniaPat

But none of them have a chance for winning! So, it is like we have no choice. Are any of the ‘other choices’ on all 50 states’ ballots?

loneaudience
loneaudience

I will probably vote for Jill Stein. I understand that she has no chance of winning. So what? I’m voting for the person that I believe best represents my principles. That’s good enough for me.

Star Strider

Just now listening to PBS Newshour. The reason she-who-must-not-be-named didn’t violate the law, is that the law — The Espionage Act of 1917 — hasn’t been updated to include email or other electronic communications! (These have only been commonplace for the last 20+ years, so it is much too soon to expect a do-nothing Congress to have acted.) It was written to cover hardcopy material only.

With respect to the email server, as I understand the discussion, it would have to be demonstrated that there was an actual transfer of classified information to someone who did not have permission to have it. So unless some person or organisation that is not supposed to have access to the classified information on the server comes forward saying they have it and got it from the server, there is unfortunately no criminal act. Don’t count on that, for the simple reason that no one ever describes how they got information they shouldn’t have. That reveals to the target information about the capabilities of the intruder. That is not in the best interests of the intruder.

If Congress had updated the law several years ago, she-who-must-not-be-named would be facing serious charges, and probably prison. There is nevertheless a double standard, and the wealthy and well-connected get off, and the rest of us get prosecuted, for the same actions.

We can only hope that the Repugs keep digging until they find something substantial. Like Fleur de Lisa, I never thought I would be in sympathy with them.

GreatLakeSailor
GreatLakeSailor

Maybe Guccifer can provide that evidence. Of course that would require the FBI wanting to prove that, and that’s a stretch.

Anyone know which division of the Deep State has him in custody?

elmo
elmo

No, that isn’t right. Other people have been charged and convicted just for removing documents, no transfer to another person. Sandy Berger just stuffed documents into his pants!

Plus, the server was maintained and hosted by people without security clearances.