In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 11 2017 06:02 NewSunshine wrote: The idea that Russia is making people blind to anything is silly. Just because some other issue didn't make the news on a day that something Russia-related did doesn't make those issues disappear. If the Democrats as a whole have a problem, it's not because of this Russia investigation, which is very new in the big picture. And just because the Democrats have problems doesn't make the Russia issue negligible. If nothing else, I will be holding our officials accountable to the results of the investigation come 2018. Your first duty as a citizen is to give a shit and vote.
And to begin with, I'm less inclined to complain about Democrats right now, because they aren't in a position to do much unless the Republicans get over themselves and work together. Once the elections come near, I'll start chewing them out for acting out and getting bad attention, because then it'll matter.
You're saying several things there that don't quite line up with what I'm saying or each other.
There's a difference between being blind to issues or issues not being there. It's clear Democrats are blind to their issues at the leadership level when they sent out an email asking if they should print millions of "Have you seen the other guys?" bumper stickers.
It's also clear that headlines and talking heads chattering about Russia is less time asking politicians why we haven't joined the rest of the OECD countries and recognized healthcare as a right? Why do we continue to let ~20 veterans die a day (we've haven't lost soldiers at a rate that high in Afghanistan or Iraq, or both combined). But Wuffey knows it's not a crisis, because you know it's not his family or ones he cared about being devastated by the 100+ deaths every week because we don't have the basic decency to provide appropriate mental healthcare for the people whose minds we broke by sending them into wars for corporate profits and other misadventures of the MIC.
Russia is negligible because the entire country has bigger problems with holding those in power accountable. Not just because it's a terrible and losing strategy to focus on for Democrats. I hope in my dismissals, people didn't lose sight of the fact that I would have people like Trump and others incarcerated or otherwise diminished as a result of my preferred policy. Also I dream of a Republican party sincere in their convictions and Christianity, which would rapidly expose the Democrats for the (slightly different) corporate puppets they are at the political level.
However, I don't subscribe to the idea that if we just let Democrats slide suddenly people will hold them more accountable than they did while Obama was bombing 7?different countries, or becoming the "deporter in chief", or enshrining in law corporate profits for insurers while leaving millions without insurance and millions paying for insurers to profit, but still unable to afford the care they need, or leaving the perpetrators of massive fraud, theft, and worse undeterred, I mean the list goes on and on and is again best summarized in this simple image.
On July 11 2017 06:12 Wulfey_LA wrote: I just happened on a really good summary of what Dems want by John Stoehr . I am sure the usual Berners here will ignore this list and focus on nonsense and insane Us-V-1% junk. Even after posting this on point list, John Stoehr gets trolled by Berners whining about "but fracking" without any acknowledgment of how complex of an issue energy production is.
1. Health care for everyone. 2. Higher wages. 3. Equal rights. 4. Responsible gun laws. 5. Stronger unions. 6. Criminal justice reform. What neoliberal shills want, con't: 7. Anti-monopoly legislation. 8. Campaign finance reform. 9. INFRASTRUCTURE! 10. Green energy policy.
EDIT: to below, YES. The Benghazi investigations got Trump elected and put Republicans in congress. There is no either/or going on. National safe seat guys do the investigating, local and down ticket candidates run on platform.
I know no one picked up on this despite me bringing it to people's attention, but Hillary and now Democrats schtick is to say they want these things (although if you dig into the details of what various Dems mean by those buzzwords you end up with quite different interpretations), but not be able to pass them.
I've covered it before, but that's exactly what would have happened had she won and it was public knowledge that was the plan.
Remember we can't honestly expect any of that without super majorities for Democrats in both chambers and the Presidency AND an acceptable proposal for their corporate donors. Problem is they have absolutely no plan or observable desire (let alone viable path) to make that happen.
I can see how the bumper sticker has become this flashpoint for everything is wrong with the DNC is every way, but it was an email. It was a bad idea that some group in the DNC felt was “the best” and wouldn’t stop pushing. So they made one and decided to test balloon it by email. Working in an office, I can totally see how the people that opposed the terrible idea felt the need to watch is crash and burn just to prove how terrible it was. The arguments in meetings about that slogan will never happen again.
It is also tremendously attractive to float the idea of continuing the "look how bad the opposition is" when it seems to work quite well for Republicans in some of these small-scale election battles. While it's possible all those negative ads tying the Dem to Pelosi had no impact on the GA special election, it seems somewhat unlikely, and to ignore its potency during the Obama years is absurd.
It's difficult for them to stomach that Democrats put "Giant Meteor 2016" stickers on their cars when they hear how bad the opposition is while Republicans go out and vote because they know otherwise more babies will get murdered. It's like finding out you can't build tanks anymore in TvT, but your opponent can.
Trump presses presidential immunity claim in 'Apprentice' contestant's suit By JOSH GERSTEIN 07/08/2017 11:38 PM EDT Advancing a sweeping claim of presidential immunity, President Donald Trump's lawyers have formally asked to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former "Apprentice" contestant who says he groped her a decade ago.
Trump's assertion that a sitting president cannot be sued in a state court was contained in a court filing submitted to a Manhattan judge by Marc Kasowitz, the same private attorney heading up the president's defense in ongoing investigations into alleged ties between Russia and the Trump campaign during last year's presidential race.
Kasowitz's motion adopts some of Trump's forceful rhetorical response to the Russia probe, dismissing the lawsuit from former "Apprentice" contestant Summer Zervos as "a private witch-hunt" aimed at doing political damage to the president and providing fodder for potential impeachment proceedings.
"Ms. Zervos and her counsel have openly conceded — indeed, bragged — that their true motivation is to use this action for political purposes as a pretext to obtain broad discovery that they hoped could be used in impeachment hearings to distract from the President’s agenda," Kasowitz wrote in the motion filed Friday night with New York Supreme Court Judge Jennifer Schecter.
Prior to last year's election, Zervos claimed that when she appeared on the reality TV show, which Trump hosted, he repeatedly kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast and thrust his genitals at her. Trump issued a statement that appeared to deny the allegations. In the new filing, his lawyers call her allegations "false."
However, the most legally controversial of Kasowitz's arguments is his contention that Trump is immune from suit in state courts during the time he serves as president.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 1997 case involving President Bill Clinton and former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones that the president is not immune from civil lawsuits while in office.
The justices said they had confidence that federal judges could manage such litigation with appropriate deference to the president's important duties, but Trump's legal team notes that the high court left open the question of whether state courts should be similarly trusted to manage litigation against the president. Trump's lawyers say allowing state courts to oversee such suits would be a mistake.
"This action should be dismissed without prejudice to Ms. Zervos refiling after the President completes his presidency because this State Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a civil action against a sitting President," Trump's lawyers wrote. "This Court lacks the authority pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction in this case because a state court cannot control President Trump — who uniquely embodies the Executive Branch — or interfere with his ability to perform his duties ..."
"Clinton v. Jones recognized that if any civil suit against a sitting president were permitted to proceed, a federal court would be better positioned to handle such a matter given the threat of local prejudices, the lack of uniformity in states’ laws, and the federal courts’ expertise in handling federal immunity matters," Trump's attorneys added.
While the Clinton v. Jones ruling did not resolve the question of state courts' jurisdiction over a sitting president, Kasowitz and his colleagues attempt to leverage a slew of public criticism of the Supreme Court ruling. Much of that negative reaction came from liberal commentators who said the justices failed to foresee how politically fraught litigation would be when the defendant is the president.
The Trump brief approvingly cites critiques from figures such as Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner and former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger.
"If this action is not temporarily stayed, it will disrupt and impair the President’s ability to discharge his Article II responsibilities. Indeed, numerous commentators have concluded that allowing Clinton v. Jones to proceed was in error," Kasowitz observed.
The suit filed earlier this year for Zervos by prominent women's rights attorney Gloria Allred does not directly claim injury or damages from Trump's alleged actions a decade ago. Instead, the complaint alleges that Trump, in his denial of Zervos' claims, essentially called her a liar and damaged her reputation. She's asserting about $3,000 in damages, an amount below the $75,000 threshold required to move litigation between parties in different states to federal court.
Kasowitz's motion contains 40 mentions by name of Allred, terming her a "self-proclaimed political activist" and "high-profile Democratic fundraiser who has politically opposed Donald Trump for decades."
Trump's legal team signaled in March that it planned to raise the claim about state courts lacking jurisdiction over the president. Trump's attorneys wanted to press that argument first, then turn to the substance of the suit in subsequent proceedings, if necessary. However, the judge told Trump's side to deal with both sets of issues at once, leading to Friday's filing.
In a filing in April, Zervos' lawyers dismissed Trump's immunity claim.
"Precisely because Defendant's underlying tortious behavior has nothing to do with his current duties or office, and because it occurred before he took that office, he does not have immunity from suit," Zervos' attorneys wrote. "No person is above the law in this country and that includes the President of the United States."
On July 11 2017 06:42 Plansix wrote: I can see how the bumper sticker has become this flashpoint for everything is wrong with the DNC is every way, but it was an email. It was a bad idea that some group in the DNC felt was “the best” and wouldn’t stop pushing. So they made one and decided to test balloon it by email. Working in an office, I can totally see how the people that opposed the terrible idea felt the need to watch is crash and burn just to prove how terrible it was. The arguments in meetings about that slogan will never happen again.
But the idea that they are fine the way they are, or maybe need to pander to racists and bigots a bit more, burns strong (which is one of the actual problems).
On July 11 2017 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Russia is negligible because the entire country has bigger problems with holding those in power accountable. Not just because it's a terrible and losing strategy to focus on for Democrats. I hope in my dismissals, people didn't lose sight of the fact that I would have people like Trump and others incarcerated or otherwise diminished as a result of my preferred policy. Also I dream of a Republican party sincere in their convictions and Christianity, which would rapidly expose the Democrats for the (slightly different) corporate puppets they are at the political level.
Most of what you said has very little to do with what I said, but I will address this much.
Ideally yes, Republicans would be true to their convictions, just like in an ideal world, so should the Democrats. We might actually have a good party to vote for in this case, but it still doesn't mean much, because there's no sign of it happening.
The reason I don't look forward to continuing the argument is because of something you've done in this post, and in nearly every other argument I see you in. You dismiss the issue out of hand, because you think there's a bigger issue that should be addressed instead. Why should I put my energy into arguing something if you dismiss it as irrelevant because there's something bigger? I'm wasting my time when you do that. The world is not a single entity that can only do one thing at a time, nor is this country, and I have no energy to argue that fact.
On July 11 2017 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Russia is negligible because the entire country has bigger problems with holding those in power accountable. Not just because it's a terrible and losing strategy to focus on for Democrats. I hope in my dismissals, people didn't lose sight of the fact that I would have people like Trump and others incarcerated or otherwise diminished as a result of my preferred policy. Also I dream of a Republican party sincere in their convictions and Christianity, which would rapidly expose the + Show Spoiler +
Democrats for the (slightly different) corporate puppets they are at the political level.
Most of what you said has very little to do with what I said, but I will address this much.
Ideally yes, Republicans would be true to their convictions, just like in an ideal world, so should the Democrats. We might actually have a good party to vote for in this case, but it still doesn't mean much, because there's no sign of it happening.
The reason I don't look forward to continuing the argument is because of something you've done in this post, and in nearly every other argument I see you in. You dismiss the issue out of hand, because you think there's a bigger issue that should be addressed instead. Why should I put my energy into arguing something if you dismiss it as irrelevant because there's something bigger? I'm wasting my time when you do that. The world is not a single entity that can only do one thing at a time, nor is this country, and I have no energy to argue that fact.
Note the selectivity of the dismissals though. If it is (1) bad for the Republicans (Russia, AHCA), not a real issue, Dems shouldn't talk about it. If it (2) actual liberal/Dem policy, then it isn't good enough and there is always some more leftways room in there because of the Corporations and Corruption. If it is (3) bad for the Democrats, then it is a critical issue that must be pushed endlessly and nothing progressive can happen until whatever it is about the Democrats is radically changed.
Thanks to these selective dismissals, GH only ends up talking about stuff he regards as (3) bad for the Dems and you can never get to any other issues. And even on this issue, he has hard priors about Corruption and the Corporations so you can't even change his mind with evidence. However, I regard GH's act as valuable as it is such a pure distillation of the lefter-than-thou BernieBro. He runs the alleged-leftie concern troll game so effectively that it is worth hearing just so you recognize it elsewhere.
On July 11 2017 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Russia is negligible because the entire country has bigger problems with holding those in power accountable. Not just because it's a terrible and losing strategy to focus on for Democrats. I hope in my dismissals, people didn't lose sight of the fact that I would have people like Trump and others incarcerated or otherwise diminished as a result of my preferred policy. Also I dream of a Republican party sincere in their convictions and Christianity, which would rapidly expose the Democrats for the (slightly different) corporate puppets they are at the political level.
Most of what you said has very little to do with what I said, but I will address this much.
Ideally yes, Republicans would be true to their convictions, just like in an ideal world, so should the Democrats. We might actually have a good party to vote for in this case, but it still doesn't mean much, because there's no sign of it happening.
The reason I don't look forward to continuing the argument is because of something you've done in this post, and in nearly every other argument I see you in. You dismiss the issue out of hand, because you think there's a bigger issue that should be addressed instead. Why should I put my energy into arguing something if you dismiss it as irrelevant because there's something bigger? I'm wasting my time when you do that.
Well I would definitely agree that you would be wasting your time arguing about the significance of the Russia issue, because while you assume I'm dismissing the issue itself (whether there was some influence from Russia and what role Trump and/or his campaign may have played, as well as any vulnerabilities or quid pro quo that could come of his questionable business and social ties), what I'm actually dismissing is the prolonged notion that anything groundbreaking is going to come of it all.
Don't doubt that I see serious problems in all of it, but it's this lie people keep telling themselves and others about how this among other issues, are being used to distract from the larger underlying issues in both parties.
Away from the election people are beginning to see more clearly that "we don't have a good party to vote for" and that "neither shows any sign of becoming one" to paraphrase you a bit, the next step is realizing that falling back in line come election time isn't the solution.
On July 11 2017 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Russia is negligible because the entire country has bigger problems with holding those in power accountable. Not just because it's a terrible and losing strategy to focus on for Democrats. I hope in my dismissals, people didn't lose sight of the fact that I would have people like Trump and others incarcerated or otherwise diminished as a result of my preferred policy. Also I dream of a Republican party sincere in their convictions and Christianity, which would rapidly expose the + Show Spoiler +
Democrats for the (slightly different) corporate puppets they are at the political level.
Most of what you said has very little to do with what I said, but I will address this much.
Ideally yes, Republicans would be true to their convictions, just like in an ideal world, so should the Democrats. We might actually have a good party to vote for in this case, but it still doesn't mean much, because there's no sign of it happening.
The reason I don't look forward to continuing the argument is because of something you've done in this post, and in nearly every other argument I see you in. You dismiss the issue out of hand, because you think there's a bigger issue that should be addressed instead. Why should I put my energy into arguing something if you dismiss it as irrelevant because there's something bigger? I'm wasting my time when you do that. The world is not a single entity that can only do one thing at a time, nor is this country, and I have no energy to argue that fact.
Note the selectivity of the dismissals though. If it is (1) bad for the Republicans (Russia, AHCA), not a real issue, Dems shouldn't talk about it. If it (2) actual liberal/Dem policy, then it isn't good enough and there is always some more leftways room in there because of the Corporations and Corruption. If it is (3) bad for the Democrats, then it is a critical issue that must be pushed endlessly and nothing progressive can happen until whatever it is about the Democrats is radically changed.
Thanks to these selective dismissals, GH only ends up talking about stuff he regards as (3) bad for the Dems and you can never get to any other issues. And even on this issue, he has hard priors about Corruption and the Corporations so you can't even change his mind with evidence. However, I regard GH's act as valuable as it is such a pure distillation of the lefter-than-thou BernieBro. He runs the alleged-leftie concern troll game so effectively that it is worth hearing just so you recognize it elsewhere.
I'm fine talking about the dismal state of Republican politics, but you guys do realize they have been wiping the floor with Democrats right?
You might want to think about your reluctance to talk about the shortcomings of the Democratic party and whether that might have something to do with losing 1000+ seats?
The last bit I take as a compliment (though I can't really be that since I enjoy hobby shooting and have some other interests/ideas that would preclude me from being said distillation) that's what this place is for imho.
GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
I remember in this very thread, there was an argument about how useless it is to abstain from voting, just because you think both candidates are bad. Virtues and standards are great, but they don't do anything to create actual progress. You have to vote, and you have to give a shit, or nothing will change.
You can't beat any system without playing by its rules for long enough. And Trump is just about the shittiest way possible to "beat the system". It's a pie in the sky fantasy.
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
On July 11 2017 07:33 NewSunshine wrote: I remember in this very thread, there was an argument about how useless it is to abstain from voting, just because you think both candidates are bad. Virtues and standards are great, but they don't do anything to create actual progress. You have to vote, and you have to give a shit, or nothing will change.
You can't beat any system without playing by its rules for long enough. And Trump is just about the shittiest way possible to "beat the system". It's a pie in the sky fantasy.
I definitely voted, but your argument falls flat on 10's of millions of Americans who are tired of the sick joke that is our political system. There is no one for them to vote for, and voting for the lesser of two bads isn't a choice worth losing a few hours of their day to vote for (let alone the many more hours it would take to make an informed decision, providing media actually provided valuable information, or the "viable" politicians were worth learning about) .
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
And remember that GHs pet issue is campaign finance. Roberts was the 5th judge that swung citizens united. Appointed by Bush. Also the tide turner on gutting the voters rights act.
The Democratic Party sucks, but people saying throwing vote to third parties will teach them a lesson suck just as hard.
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
You were also pushing quite hard for Jill Stein.
Um, yeah, if you'd rather I vote third party, in a strong 2-party environment, I can safely ignore what you have to say. I don't like a 2-party system because it doesn't encourage a party to make themselves look good, and so they don't, but this is the system we have. If you want me to throw my vote away in the name of some virtuous code, you're free to do that yourself, but I plan on having a vote that at least counts toward something.
On July 11 2017 08:19 Plansix wrote: And remember that GHs pet issue is campaign finance. Roberts was the 5th judge that swung citizens united. Appointed by Bush. Also the tide turner on gutting the voters rights act.
The Democratic Party sucks, but people saying throwing vote to third parties will teach them a lesson suck just as hard.
Yeah, if you still believe the myth that Bush was elected because of third party voters that almost is a smart quip.
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
You were also pushing quite hard for Jill Stein.
Um, yeah, if you'd rather I vote third party, in a strong 2-party environment, I can safely ignore what you have to say. I don't like a 2-party system because it doesn't encourage a party to make themselves look good, and so they don't, but this is the system we have. If you want me to throw my vote away in the name of some virtuous code, you're free to do that yourself, but I plan on having a vote that at least counts toward something.
Well I mean vote how you think is right, but no, voting for Democrats to not have to get better doesn't make them better, anyone who tells you that is the one you should be dismissing.
This learned helplessness of being trapped in a two party system so you can't help but vote to perpetuate it is getting pathetic though. You aren't helpless, you don't have to keep voting for crap candidates for fear of even worse ones winning, and the people telling you that's how it has to be are not doing so in your best interests and it would behoove all of us for those not being paid to, to stop repeating it.
I never said third party voters got Bush elected. But they were a factor. Every year the republicans praise god that the third party nightmare candidates like Stien pander left and attack the democrats. And anyone who supports progressive policy and then says voting for them is a good idea is lying about one of those things.
On July 11 2017 08:19 Plansix wrote: And remember that GHs pet issue is campaign finance. Roberts was the 5th judge that swung citizens united. Appointed by Bush. Also the tide turner on gutting the voters rights act.
The Democratic Party sucks, but people saying throwing vote to third parties will teach them a lesson suck just as hard.
Yeah, if you still believe the myth that Bush was elected because of third party voters that almost is a smart quip.
On July 11 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote: GH's positions might make more sense if you remember that after Bernie lost he was considering voting Trump. He isn't in this for the liberal policies. Hes in it to 'beat the system'.
lol if I said anything along those lines I'm sure it was in jest or saying it rhetorically to make a point about someone's argument. I knew better than to actually believe Trump would do anything but what would benefit him personally. Let there be no doubt, regardless of how his presidency turns out politically, it will be the most profitable presidency in history.
You were also pushing quite hard for Jill Stein.
Um, yeah, if you'd rather I vote third party, in a strong 2-party environment, I can safely ignore what you have to say. I don't like a 2-party system because it doesn't encourage a party to make themselves look good, and so they don't, but this is the system we have. If you want me to throw my vote away in the name of some virtuous code, you're free to do that yourself, but I plan on having a vote that at least counts toward something.
Well I mean vote how you think is right, but no, voting for Democrats to not have to get better doesn't make them better, anyone who tells you that is the one you should be dismissing.
This learned helplessness of being trapped in a two party system so you can't help but vote to perpetuate it is getting pathetic though. You aren't helpless, you don't have to keep voting for crap candidates for fear of even worse ones winning, and the people telling you that's how it has to be are not doing so in your best interests and it would behoove all of us for those not being paid to, to stop repeating it.
Voting for a particular person, or no person at all, has a number of meanings. Some people voted for Trump because they agreed with his campaign pledges, and some voted for him to stick it to Hillary and "the liberals". Same goes for Hillary. If someone votes third party, in this environment, it usually means you don't care whether your vote ends up affecting anything. Whether you agree with that person's policies, or whether you voted for them just to "stick it" to the 2-party system, is up to you. I don't see it as a worthwhile exercise in an environment where they still don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Voting for the "least bad" of 2 candidates doesn't sound appealing, but you know what? It'll keep us from having another term of Trump's incompetence, corruption, and flat out idiocy, or something just as bad.
I feel like this thread sounds like this video at times.
That was creepy. "More than Obama in his entire presidency" and he said it with such conviction and did not have a single thing to say other than a supreme court nominee. That is weird.
Also, seeing Trump go after Comey and his memos again is extremely encouraging.
Clinton mishandling classified information helped cost her the presidency, Comey doing the same may cost him his credibility (or what remains).
Intent matters. Clinton’s intent was to set up a private server to avoid using government servers and the record keeping associated with them. Comey’s intent was to create contemporaneous memorandum as evidence to what he clearly felt was obstruction of justice. As he would be a primary witness in that case, classified information would naturally make its way into the memos. The claims he broke the same rules are just speculation.
FBI rules matter for the treatment of classified info. It's very easy to read from The Hill story that four of the memos themselves contained classified markings as far as "secret" and "confidential" (although sometimes classification levels mean share with anyone regardless of clearance provided you don't have bad intent, from this thread.) Congressional investigators are already on the case, so this will all come out in time.
You really need to get your head out of your ass and all the conspiracy shit.
Leaking classified info is a crime. If the memo he leaked doesn't contain classified info (which Comey as FBI director should know), then the leak isn't criminal. The memo's were stored in a secure location (FBI network), so it's nowhere close to Hilary's email server. At worst Comey would be guilty of an administrative failure to properly label the memo's as classified, which could be cause for dismissal, but then again he's already been fired so that's done.
And once again, no Danglars response to this point at all.
This is forming a pattern.
Danglars/xDaunt bring up the newest right wing Hannity conspiracy talking point. People spend 2-3 pages figuring out what they are talking about, at which point the whole thing vaporates into thin air. The person who brought it up never responds to anyone mentioning it, 2-3 pages later everyone stops talking about it, and then a week or two later, it gets added onto the big pile of "evidence" that gets displayed to attack the opposition, without ever acknowledging that the whole thing never had any substance whatsoever.
If i understand correctly, this argument is basically: Beer is a beverage. He drove after drinking a beverage. Thus, he was driving under influence. Which isn't even close to how it was initially presented.
Remember kids: As long as you don't reply directly to a post, it never existed, and you can use the argument that it debunked again and again!
EPT
