GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Larry L.]

In the absence of any information that H. C. caused irrefutable damage to our national security with what she did with that miniscule percentage of all the emails her server handled (which, according to the FBI numbered only 110 [lol!]), it is my personal opinion that our country's best international interests would better be served by her than a bombastic blowhard who embarrases the USA by publicly bragging about the size of his penis and insults 51% of our population (females) on a regular basis.

Yeah...Nat'l security, honesty, following/complying with official governmental/departmental rules & procedures and adhering to the constitution and the laws of the country are all clearly secondary to 'concerns' over the 'personality issues' you outlined.

BTW...did you know anyone involved in any way with the handling of the nuke codes is subject to very strict rules & regs regarding same and is expected to fully comply with and follow every facet of same w/o even the slightlest deviation? Not only that, but said persons have to pass a very stringent background/security check. 'Ya think Billary could pass that background check now? Do you seriously believe she'd follow all the 'nuke code' rules any more than she's followed other security rules? ('Rhetorical question. I'd be STUNNED to discover you didn't.)

Billary has already quite clearly demonstrated she couldn't be trusted with the security of the classified materials to which she's already had access. And yet you seriously think SHE is faaar more worthy of our trust with regard to HER handling of "the codes" than Trump?

Ooooookay... :stunned:
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

 

[Doug S.]

Trump makes up his own rules...do you honestly believe he would follow the law? He's a loose cannon, just waiting to go off at the least provocation. He doesn't even follow the most simple rules of civility, doesn't think he needs to.

He'll catapult the world into WWIII! (No "Cheers" for that!!!)

Doug

 

[Randy V]

I think you're giving the office of POTUS a bit more power than it really has.
Without the backing of Congress, the office is not that powerful. Influential? Certainly.
I think DT would settle down substantially when tempered by a VP, Cabinet and Congress..

 

[Steve]

I don't remember hearing that, Veek, and I was listening carefully. Hopefully the entire press conference will be available online so I can listen again.

For the most part, though, this brouhaha seems to be "...much ado about nothing!"

Cheers!!

Doug

Doug, here are direct quotes:

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail."




This is hardly "much ado about nothin". Pete is right, anyone of lesser stature would be fired and likely prosecuted. It is also dubious that Bill Clinton met with The AG last week. What on earth could have been his intent? I hear your concerns on Trump. They are real and nothing to laugh at, but there's no way any reasonable person can say HC is in the clear here. She broke the law, they're just choosing to not prosecute. Her behavior and her attempts at covering it up/lying are reprehensible for someone running for President. Nixon resigned over similar behavior.

 

[PeteB]

Doug, it seems to me I could could prove without a doubt that Hillary is Satan himself, you'd still vote for her. I really don't give a damn who you vote for, but I do care tremendously about the laws and security of our nation. To me this isn't about an election - if a Republican did what Hillary did, I'd want them to go to jail also. I never once said I was a Trump supporter, YOU made that assumption. I am truly sickened by the absolute corruption of the current administration and the fact that our justice system has completely different standards for the political elite as it does for the rest of us.

 

[Larry L.]

I
I think DT would settle down substantially when tempered by a VP, Cabinet and Congress..

...not to mention the weight of the responsibilities of that office once he is fully briefed on what's going on and he has 'the whole picture'.

 

[Doug S.]

Still looking for that proverbial "smoking gun" that would irrefutably demonstrate that damage to national security occurred, Steve. As far as I understand it the FBI determined "No harm, no foul".

I will agree that presidential candidates, as well as candidates for other high-level offices, may get precerential treatment in some instances, but to compare her to Nixon?

One of my favorite political quotes is "To claim that Richard Nixon's administration was the most corrupt since Willard Filmore's does one hell of a disservice to Willard Filmore!"

Do you get the idea that this sort of stuff is SOP and has been for all of our country's history?

So...where is the irrefutable proof that H.C.'s actions were more eggregious than those of her predecessors? If that can be proven, I would support the radical right's angst over the issue...but, if the FBI cannot find reason to indict there must be adequate doubt that procecution would yield a guilty verdict.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...politicians have been "extremely careless" for centuries and in the absence of irrefutable proof of harm the brouhaha being raised by the radical right is really just "...much ado about nothing" (but that's nothing new from the radical right, they are desperate to stop the country's political pendulum from swinging back to the left, as the recent polls show is happening).

Cheers!

Doug

 

[PeteB]

In the absence of any information that H. C. caused irrefutable damage to our national security with what she did with that miniscule percentage of all the emails her server handled (which, according to the FBI numbered only 110),
Cheers!!

Doug

It only take ONE leak of classified information to get someone killed or extreme damage to our country. THATS WHAT CLASSIFIED MEANS!!!!! The definition of Top Secret: containing or being information whose unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave danger to the nation. That only takes ONE e-mail!!!!

HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?????????

 

[Larry L.]

...do you honestly believe he would follow the law?

Yes...as opposed to Billary who has clearly been shown to skirt same at every opportunity.

...He's a loose cannon, just waiting to go off at the least provocation...He'll catapult the world into WWIII!

'Scripted, carefully crafted lefty/DNC accusation/talking point intended to demean, discredit and besmirch the man...which adheres - to the letter - to tactics outlined by Saul Alinsky in his lib bible, "Rules for Radicals".

Oh, and BTW...in case you haven't noticed...we're already fighting WWIII.

... He doesn't even follow the most simple rules of civility, doesn't think he needs to.

IOW - he's not the least bit concerned with/about being "p.c."

 

[Jeff Young]

So we are clear you guys agree with everything the FBI concluded except their conclusion?

The cognitive dissonance hurts.

 

[Doug S.]

Doug, it seems to me I could could prove without a doubt that Hillary is Satan himself, you'd still vote for her...

Wrong, Pete...my vote will not be for a person as much as it will be for the PARTY that I believe is going to do the best job of bringing our country out from under this huge cloud hanging over our country...or, perhaps, AGAINST the party I believe is responsible for the cloud. That is the Republican Party, IMHO, and as I have stated before I believe John Boehner and his Republican partners in crime should be tried for treason.

To paraphrase Abbott & Costello... "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into, John!!!"

Cheers!!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

So we are clear you guys agree with everything the FBI concluded except their conclusion?

The cognitive dissonance hurts.

LOL, Jeff...seriously!

Sadly, your literate answer may well be lost on those who "...will not see!"

Cheers and thanks for the belly-laugh! :thumbsup:

Doug

 

[PeteB]

Your arrogance is astounding. Yeah, we're the ones who will not see...:thumbsup:

 

[Doug S.]

It's all part of my quest to "...age disgracefully", Pete...thanks for recognizing it!

Cheers!!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

So we are clear you guys agree with everything the FBI concluded except their conclusion?

Pretty much. And, judging from the fact Comey flew out of the 'presser' to avoid answering questions about the FBI's decision to let Billary skate - 'twould appear HE was none to comfortable about having to explain the twisted, convoluted, irrational and contrary 'legal logic' used to come to that conclusion/decision.

HOW can Comey, after reciting Billary's endless list of violations of the law that required no "intent" to warrant indictment, follow that up by saying, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences...TO THE CONTRARY, those individuals are OFTEN subject to security or administrative sanctions"...and then announce there'd be no charges? Could it BE because Billary is just so...so...sooo...'special'?


Remember the MARINE drummed out of the service for committing ONE - ONE - faaaaaaaaaaaaar less serious violation involving info of a faaaaaaar lower security classification?

Marine who warned of insider attack to be discharged


Remember Patraeus?


Remember the ambassador (Scott Gration) who Billary's State Dept fired for doing exactly what SHE did?

Hillary's State Dept. Forced Out An Ambassador For Using Private Email


DOUBLE STANDARD much? HYPOCRISY much? PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT much? THE FIX was always in much?

Naaaaaaaaaaaah...of COURSE not...

 

[Jeff Young]

This is hardly "much ado about nothin". Pete is right, anyone of lesser stature would be fired and likely prosecuted. It is also dubious that Bill Clinton met with The AG last week. What on earth could have been his intent? I hear your concerns on Trump. They are real and nothing to laugh at, but there's no way any reasonable person can say HC is in the clear here. She broke the law, they're just choosing to not prosecute. Her behavior and her attempts at covering it up/lying are reprehensible for someone running for President. Nixon resigned over similar behavior.

Bzzt, fail. You can't pick and choose what parts of the FBI's conclusions you agree with. FBI said no one been prosecuted in the past for carelessness like this, which was the primary reason they were not recommending it here.

Lotsa quoting from the presser, except of course for the ultimate conclusion, which the pissed off white guy contingent no likee. Oh well.

 

[Jeff Young]

I gotta admit, 8 years of President Hillary Clinton will provide endless hilarity from Larry. she should be elected on that grounds alone.

 

[Steve]

Doug,

First, it's Millard Filmore not Willard. Second, yes comparing Hillary to Nixon is fair game. Nixon didn't authorize the watergate break-in, he lied to cover it up and felt he was above the law. Hillary authorized an off site personal server and knowingly handled sensitive classified documents in an illegal manner then lied about it. She also had others delete many of the emails that may have pertained to the investigation. She broke the law on so many levels it's astounding and, like Nixon, she believes the laws/rules don't apply to her. You want a smoking gun? The FBI is operating under the assumption the entire server was hacked and penetrated, probably by the Russians. So now our classified documents are in Puti's hands. I'm sad to see you, or anyone reasonably intelligent, praise an individual with so little integrity. And yes, Jeff, she will likely win the election but I doubt after 4 years the American people will be able to stand the stench of her. Her approval ratings are in the low 30's/ high 20's and are unlikely to move much. Americans simply don't like her and never have. She will be elected as the lesser of two evils, that's all.

 

[Larry L.]

I gotta admit, 8 years of President Hillary Clinton will provide endless hilarity from Larry. she should be elected on that grounds alone.

'GREAT rebuttal, Mr. Young. Just exemplary...as usual.

 

[Doug S.]

Spelling or keyboarding error, Steve...we all make them...by the way, it's Putin, not Puti...as I said, we all do it.

Regarding Clinton...yes, I agree...she will be incredibly unpopular...it's just amazing, though, that the Repubs, who don't like Trump, either, could not stop him...much less control this political loose cannon.

That is a failure that, IMHO, the majority of Americans will hold against the Republican Party, and rightfully so.

The shine is off the apple, so to speak, regarding the Conservative Agenda.

It WILL be an interesting election!!!

Cheers!!

Doug