Here's the smoking gun

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Here is proof that Clinton broke the law:

The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to
ascertain whether information shared through her private email server
was, in fact, classified.

“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with
appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to
ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge
or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the
agreement says.

She clearly was negligent. I believe that the case has been made,
and will continue to be made, to the American people. This obvious
crime is the reason for her abysmal trust numbers (17% of independents
describe her as trustworthy).

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/

or

http://bit.ly/1GOGmzZ

--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer

[agavi...@gmail.com]

People just don't get it. There is no smoking gun hot enough for her backers to shy away from her.

Except for the uniformed voter -who thinks this is a jealous republican witch hunt- this has NOTHING to do with her ability to govern, her politics, or any other moral, legal, or political issue.

She is simply someone's best chance for access to power. It's a con game at the highest levels. The politics are simply window dressing for power and money.

It's perfect for them because they know no other method by which to earn a living. I doubt either can practice law (I know he can't), so the closest they could get without a political appointment or elected position is to be a lobbyist.

Don't waste your time trying to post the smoking gun that will change minds. One set of minds won't be changed, the other doesn't care.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2015-11-06, the_andr...@yahoo.com <agavi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People just don't get it. There is no smoking gun hot enough for her
> backers to shy away from her.
>
> Except for the uniformed voter -who thinks this is a jealous
> republican witch hunt- this has NOTHING to do with her ability to
> govern, her politics, or any other moral, legal, or political issue.

True. But when you present obvious evidence that shows anyone with
even a small portion of a functioning brain and half an ounce of
common sense that she is an utter incompetent, you build cognitive
dissonance. People who live in that state are nowhere near as likely
to vote, and occasionally change their mind.

> She is simply someone's best chance for access to power. It's a con
> game at the highest levels. The politics are simply window dressing
> for power and money.
>
> It's perfect for them because they know no other method by which to
> earn a living. I doubt either can practice law (I know he can't), so
> the closest they could get without a political appointment or
> elected position is to be a lobbyist.

One could say that about many politicians. I am not one who believes
that politicians don't have their place, and I don't believe that good
ones are confined to one party. Her husband was pretty good, but the
distaff Clinton is a hack.

>
> Don't waste your time trying to post the smoking gun that will
> change minds. One set of minds won't be changed, the other
> doesn't care.

Here I disagree. Looking at the trajectory of polling on Clinton,
a lot of minds have been changed. She is going to have a hard slog
to pull any significant number of independents.

--
The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying
employers must discriminate against people who have low skills.
-- Milton Friedman

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

The problem is that failure, dishonor, fiscal stupidity and immorality
attract liberal voters. Even worse, they breed.

Hugh

[Ken Olson]

Of course, a fabrication about West Point by Ben Carson is a far greater
threat to our country than anything Hillary Clinton has done.

[Ken Olson]

The D response is going to be that they have no alternative to HC.
Plus, she's destined to be the first woman President.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Sanders is far more attractive than hillary, imo, although I'm concerned that he's less electable in a general (for exactly the same reasons rubio would be a more viable choice than cruz). Of course, given the number of times I've been told how terrible denmark is over the last week or so, maybe folks know something I don't...

Not sure about the west point thing but there was a pretty interesting article about carsons autobiography on cnn earlier this week.

I don't think in the end it matters. Should be rubio, will be rubio, would prolly already be rubio if he hadn't been so damn nervous during his state of the union rebuttal. He's qualified, attractive to key demographics and could pull Florida without bushing things up.

[Futbol Phan]

This stuff about Carson is interesting. He has such a great rags-to-riches story to tell, but yet he feels compelled to fill the narrative with a bunch of exaggerations and lies. Sure it makes the story even more compelling, but i the long run it will cost him dearly, IMO.

[Eric Ramon]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:14:55 AM UTC-8, Ken Olson wrote:

>
> Of course, a fabrication about West Point by Ben Carson is a far greater
> threat to our country than anything Hillary Clinton has done.

they're both liars. I don't want either in the White House.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Sure. But knowing that and actually getting off your ass and going to
the voting booth are two different things.

--
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in
overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

[agavi...@gmail.com]

can't argue with your last point. i'm confident she will raise a surprisingly large percentage of the vote and possibly* win.

people are going to vote on party perception - it's the greatest thing the democrats have figured out.

*she might be a likely winner; especially if the stupid party trots out another bore.

[Emperor Wonko the Sane]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:27:49 AM UTC-6, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> Here is proof that Clinton broke the law:
>
> The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton's responsibility to
> ascertain whether information shared through her private email server
> was, in fact, classified.
>
> "I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with

> appropriate management authorities in the Department ... in order to

> ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge
> or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI," the
> agreement says.
>
> She clearly was negligent. I believe that the case has been made,
> and will continue to be made, to the American people. This obvious
> crime is the reason for her abysmal trust numbers (17% of independents
> describe her as trustworthy).
>
> http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/
>
> or
>
> http://bit.ly/1GOGmzZ
>
> --
> Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
> -- Karl Lehenbauer

It doesn't have to be that elaborate. The fact that she sent any State Department messages AT ALL on her own private server shows incredibly poor judgment. I'm just a lawyer and I would not dream of sending any firm communications on my private account except in an emergency. We only have confidential client information. She was communicating state secrets.

This is a pattern of poor judgment from a Rube Goldberg health care plan to taking donations from countries doing business with the State Department. That doesn't even include the outright lies like her "misplacing" subpoenaed billing records that magically show up after the case is closed to being shot at in Kosovo to the Benghazi video. Add that to the fact that she's accomplished damn near nothing in any office that she's held and you have to be blind, deaf and dumb to vote for her.

Doug

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:43:50 -0800 (PST), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Sanders is far more attractive than hillary, imo,

Not surprising that you would prefer a man to a woman any time.

Hugh

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Keep braying, donkey. Who in the world would vote with you and yours?

To the rest of y'all I would simply point out that without ten million hughs scattered across places like texas, mississippi, and alabama the gop would never win a national election.

I know you fiscons refer to them as useful idiots behind closed doors, but that's your &#!%ing base.

[meda...@gmail.com]

I'm being sincere when I say this - please stop. It's embarrassing to see an old man act this way. I know you think you are schooling your inferiors, but I challenge anyone here to reply and say sparring with you is more challenging than swatting a bug.

[Ken Olson]

If you're going to exclude liars from holding national office the pool
is extremely small for candidates.

[Eric Ramon]

let me put it this way: anyone who says she faced sniper fire in Bosnia when there's videotape of her being greeted in a peaceful setting, is likely to make some horrible decisions if she's in office. Similarly, anyone who claims he was offered a "full scholarship" to West Point, when tuition is $0, room and board is $0..for everyone!..when that didn't happen, is also likely to make some horrible decisions if he's in office.

[Ken Olson]

The big difference is that Carson was a high school age kid when this
occurred. His use of terminology is inaccurate and the offer was likely
an informal statement by Westmoreland that a teenager took for than than
it was. HC's statement is from an incident that occurred when she was
already an adult and a First Lady. What she said is a flat-out lie. Big
difference. That all being said neither of them are Presidential
material. Somehow, we can do better.

[Eric Ramon]

but he wasn't a high school age kid when he told the story...that is, when he lied about it.

from Politico:

Carson repeated his West Point claim as recently as Aug. 13, when he fielded questions from supporters on Facebook.

"And in October, Carson shared the story with Charlie Rose: "I had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer [in JROTC]. Well, no one had ever done that in that amount of time ... Long story short, it worked, I did it. I was offered full scholarship to West Point, got to meet General Westmoreland, go to Congressional Medal dinners, but decided really my pathway would be medicine.""

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qmLooiYz

Sorry...it's actually very much like Hillary Clinton's "sniper fire" story.

[Ken Olson]

Other than being a 50 year-old memory. The more bothersome thing, for
me, is that she's still hot a reasonable shot at being nominated and
elected. Carson does not.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Seen the ad from the 70s where the Army runs an ad saying you
get a "full government scholarship"?

http://bit.ly/1Pu5QDY

Carson was the second ranking ROTC officer in Detroit, with
impeccable grades. For him to have been told that he would
receive a full scholarship, just as they advertised, would
have been expected and completely unremarkable.

Meanwhile he's struck back with a press conference. It is
beautiful to watch:

https://t.co/YWZAvHIVJq

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

Except that it isn't even close.

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[Irish Ranger]

Those chosen to go to West Point do not pay tuition to get their college education. It is, in effect, a
full scholarship. Which is nothing at all like Hillary's lies to the families of the Americans killed at Benghazi. It takes a complete lack of integrity and character to stand in front of a flagged draped coffin, look the grieving family members in the eyes and knowingly, and repeatedly lie to them about how their loved ones were killed.

Irish Mike

[Irish Ranger]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 2:56:39 PM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:

>
> It doesn't have to be that elaborate. The fact that she sent any State Department messages AT ALL on her own private server shows incredibly poor judgment. I'm just a lawyer and I would not dream of sending any firm communications on my private account except in an emergency. We only have confidential client information. She was communicating state secrets.
>
> This is a pattern of poor judgment from a Rube Goldberg health care plan to taking donations from countries doing business with the State Department. That doesn't even include the outright lies like her "misplacing" subpoenaed billing records that magically show up after the case is closed to being shot at in Kosovo to the Benghazi video. Add that to the fact that she's accomplished damn near nothing in any office that she's held and you have to be blind, deaf and dumb to vote for her.
>
> Doug

All good points, all totally irrelevant - for three reasons:

1. Hillary is too big to jail. Even if ( and it's a big if), the FBI had the balls to bring criminal charges, Obama's "Justice" department will never prosecute her.

2. The low information left wing loons will just stick their heads back in the Hillary kool aid bucket and vote for her any way.

3. History has repeatedly proven that the laws that apply to we common folk do not apply to th Clintons.

Irish Mike

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 13:52:48 -0800 (PST), dotsla...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Keep braying, donkey. Who in the world would vote with you and yours?

Votes were not necessary. I was never opposed the several times I was
elected to become a member or chair some group.

>To the rest of y'all I would simply point out that without ten million hughs scattered across places like texas, mississippi, and alabama the gop would never win a national election.

That's exactly why this country is not a complete failure in spite of
worthless trash like you.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:50:23 -0800 (PST), meda...@gmail.com wrote:


> I know you think you are schooling your inferiors

The problem is that inferiors don't react well to being schooled.

But I still have hopes for you.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 21:03:37 -0800 (PST), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:

>but he wasn't a high school age kid when he told the story...that is, when =
>he lied about it.=20

Carson's terminology was incorrect - the point he was trying to make
was not.

I had an appointment to the Naval Academy in May 1946 - the Navy flew
me from Honolulu (C-47) to Frisco so I could continue to Greenville MS
to take the exam. I also was liaison for Naval Academy prospects for 6
years while in the Naval Reserve.

In 1945 there were principal appointments and alternate appointments.
As I recall Senators had one of each - I don't recall how the others
were determined. Appointments were not "earned" - qualified people got
them because somebody knew sombody. I was an alternate because my dad
didn't know anyone well enough. When the principal appointee passed
the test the alternate didn't qualify. The system changed considerably
later on.

I had no problem with the system - it was politics. After being
enlisted for a year I wasn't quite as sure I wanted a Navy career
anyhow. And I retired at the same rank (maybe one rank lower) as the
principal appointee whose home was 25 miles from mine. I even remember
his name - Bill Gresham.

In one sense people who qualify fully are given full "scholarships" to
the academies. How is that different from college athletes?

>Sorry...it's actually very much like Hillary Clinton's "sniper fire" story.

If the judgement criterion is "to be in the same world where sniper
fire existed" I can't quarrel with your statement. I would insist,
however, that the intent was very different.

People who unequivocally declare Carson's statement to be a lie should
not speak from the vantage point of ignorance expecting it to be
excused.

Hugh