tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4365840398377126287..comments2024-03-28T18:07:30.515-05:00Comments on Althouse: ABC's Martha Raddatz hilariously misreads a Donald Trump tweet — She adds "Crooked" in front of "Hillary Clinton"!Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72673357253845196112016-07-04T21:54:52.141-05:002016-07-04T21:54:52.141-05:00"Crooked" is an inseparable part of her ..."Crooked" is an inseparable part of her name now, like Shoeless Joe Jackson or Screamin' Jay Hawkins.<br /><br /><br />-- or like Stevie Ray Vaughan! <br /><br />... oh, wait...veni vidi vicihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14720172060048711733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76726770701621095602016-07-04T14:53:44.791-05:002016-07-04T14:53:44.791-05:00It should be noted that the punishment for the sai...It should be noted that the punishment for the sailor with the sub pics was 30 years in prison.<br /><br />Despite lack of intent.<br /><br />Really, though it comes as no surprise, a decision not to prosecute Hillary due to such bizarre excuses as "intent" or the election would be to ignore the rule of law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6329930443141647272016-07-04T14:52:14.923-05:002016-07-04T14:52:14.923-05:00One question I've yet to see posed is: if give...One question I've yet to see posed is: if given impunity for communication violations as SoS, would Clinton feel emboldened enough to do the same as POTUS. Exactly who -- in a hypothetical Clinton II Administration -- would stand up to her and say "no you can't"? Because what we're seeing in some media so far is tacit approval of continued lawbreaking. Isn't that troublesome?chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59625204521974037292016-07-04T14:34:55.530-05:002016-07-04T14:34:55.530-05:00Trump is so far inside their heads it's amazin...Trump is so far inside their heads it's amazing... esp. the former Republican #NeverTrump-ers, but many Dems and the media (tho, I repeat myself).<br /><br />They just splutter and fume and make no sense whatsoever, even as they think they are smart--people like Kristol and Will and Podhoretz and Kagan... they don't even realize what fools they are, because he's so deep in their synapses.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617687006180956861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34082128059968506102016-07-04T09:30:16.293-05:002016-07-04T09:30:16.293-05:001. Raddatz pulled a Reverse Ronburgundy.
2. Journo...1. Raddatz pulled a Reverse Ronburgundy.<br />2. Journolisters must be huddling now, plotting how to effectively ban the word "crooked."OSweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12686583738284450242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30704611622722426862016-07-04T06:01:35.870-05:002016-07-04T06:01:35.870-05:00Does "gross negligence" require "in...Does "gross negligence" require "intent" to do harm, or is Unknown reading from more dishonest talking points?tim in vermonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547980465313241972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88140319415887237482016-07-04T06:00:29.803-05:002016-07-04T06:00:29.803-05:00We are talking about whether a criminal charge sho...<i>We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. </i><br /><br />Muddy the waters Unknown. Good for you. It's right in the DNC leak and it is your strategy throughout.<br /><br />Hillary showed poor judgement, just as she has in so many other matters, some with far worse implications than this. She should have known that practically anything she handled in her job would possibly be classified, but instead she chose her own classification system, which was solely designed to protect her political future.<br /><br /><br />Trump is a blustering, bombastic simpleton, but I have never seen any indication that he thinks the law doesn't apply to him. In fact, he will be held to closest account by the press, who will give Hillary a pass on most anything. tim in vermonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547980465313241972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87791748153982064992016-07-03T23:46:04.303-05:002016-07-03T23:46:04.303-05:00Unknown said... "We are talking about whether...Unknown said... "We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today."<br />http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499<br />7/3/16, 10:24 PM<br /><br />Crooked Hillary caused a separate, secret communication system to be set up, and used it exclusively during her tenure as SoS. She deliberately withheld from the State department and congressional investigators emails marked as "classified". She attempted to destroy and alter other emails marked "classified" She has lied and obstructed justice throughout this <br />investigation. Despite ABC's partisan interpretation of the facts of the case, it seems pretty clear that Crooked Hillary "knowingly" broke laws, and should be arrested and tried.Michael Fitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02359671665534774344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70177576782306508622016-07-03T22:24:47.144-05:002016-07-03T22:24:47.144-05:00Based on what we know today, there are likely two ...<i>Based on what we know today, there are likely two primary laws at the heart of the probe and two or three others that might be considered investigative fallout. Partisans alleging that Clinton may have violated as many as 15 crimes are either exaggerating or simply seeking to overstate the gravity for effect.The first and most discussed statute has been 18 U.S.C.A. § 1924(a), and it’s a misdemeanor.<br /><br />There are serious legal hurdles to overcome for those who would seek to file a charge under this law. First, none of the information she possessed and/or presumably “removes” had officially been declared “classified” at that time. That matters.<br /><br /><b>But this isn’t a law school exam where we attempt to figure out how creative one can become in fitting a law into a particular fact pattern. We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today.</b><br /><br />Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody?” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.<br /><br /><b>The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith”</b><br /><br />For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.<br /><br />But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.</i><br /><br />http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-60999750901582793862016-07-03T21:59:51.968-05:002016-07-03T21:59:51.968-05:00"I just like how Trump solved the FBI case......"I just like how Trump solved the FBI case..."<br /><br />Hell, Trump is a piker. Our POTUS determined there wasn't even a hint of scandal MONTHS ago.<br /><br />No what was the rest of that blather you spouted?<br /><br />JAOREhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079431116821605772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37685701520185684442016-07-03T21:51:13.198-05:002016-07-03T21:51:13.198-05:00Thanks, Mike; Darrell and I both used the old Madm...Thanks, Mike; Darrell and I both used the old Madmenizer. Wonder if that's still available anywhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50719636739998441692016-07-03T21:44:18.124-05:002016-07-03T21:44:18.124-05:00No -Intent is not required, at least for some of t...No -Intent is not required, at least for some of the espionage statutes. All that is needed is gross negligence. Which I think would be easy to prove. But I think that actual intent could also be proven from a couple of her emails, plus the trading that she got at State, the NDA she signed, and that she was apparently one of a handful of original classifiers in the federal govt (I think there were 4: Pres, State, Defence, and Nat Security). Maybe not specific intent (to violate the law, etc), but more general intent to do the acts that resulted in the mishandled classified information. Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42375853555051056412016-07-03T21:41:52.810-05:002016-07-03T21:41:52.810-05:00The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinto...<b>The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinton did not willfully try to endanger National Security. It's the willful, knowing aspect that would've made it a crime.</b><br /><br />Thoroughly untrue. A sailor is being tried for sending pix of his sub to his family, thoroughly unaware of the security risk. Many have been punished for unintentional leaking of secure info.<br /><br />They probably weren't Democrats, though.<br /><br />And she set up her own server intentionally, knowing that it was illegal.<br /><br />But she's a Democrat and your type don't care about illegalities. Which is why I laugh at the bloodshed, every weekend, in Democrat cities. Serves the lot of you right.damikeschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02133230009952160269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76938467784194486472016-07-03T21:38:05.446-05:002016-07-03T21:38:05.446-05:00Blogger tim in vermont said...
They don’t want to ...<b>Blogger tim in vermont said...<br />They don’t want to influence an election by indicting before elections. That’s a written guideline. <br /><br />LO FUCKING L. You mean like Cap Wienberger and Ted Stevens? Don't you love it when they piss on our backs and tell us it's raining?</b><br /><br />The rules are different for Republicans. If you're a Republican, you get charged before the election and it isn't until after the election that those charges are dropped.erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18421496691136153382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49686903961300922242016-07-03T19:48:06.786-05:002016-07-03T19:48:06.786-05:00Unknown said...The FBI won't recommend charges... Unknown said...<i>The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinton did not willfully try to endanger National Security. It's the willful, knowing aspect that would've made it a crime. Criminal law experts knew this all along and have been saying so for months. Don't be too dissapointed, but really your expectations of an indictment have been almost hysterical.</i><br /><br />It should suffice to show that Rodham willfully set up an external server to conduct State Department business. Her motive was clear: to "own" the communications and to avoid nosy FOIA queries. The consequent breach of security was all too predictable. I agree, it might be too hard to prove that she sabotaged security with intent. But really, she should be charged with setting up (or having set up) the server in the first place. That explains her insistence that Colin Powell did it too (even though he didn't). chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54672056936960407562016-07-03T19:03:37.682-05:002016-07-03T19:03:37.682-05:00is that your final answer.
http://www.breitbart....is that your final answer.<br /><br /><br />http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/04/exclusive-general-jerry-boykin-on-hillary-exposing-intelligence-sources-lives-have-been-endangered-punishable-by-jail-time/narcisohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11082023858427818263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24148356848980708232016-07-03T18:51:39.361-05:002016-07-03T18:51:39.361-05:00So, if you've committed a federal crime, run f...So, if you've committed a federal crime, run for office. Even if you don't win, every year has an election of some kind. Paddy Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442537362540160512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-35694125155380232792016-07-03T18:50:45.687-05:002016-07-03T18:50:45.687-05:00The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinto...The FBI won't recommend charges because Clinton did not willfully try to endanger National Security. It's the willful, knowing aspect that would've made it a crime. Criminal law experts knew this all along and have been saying so for months. Don't be too dissapointed, but really your expectations of an indictment have been almost hysterical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87610941659359250822016-07-03T18:18:30.782-05:002016-07-03T18:18:30.782-05:00They don’t want to influence an election by indict...<b>They don’t want to influence an election by indicting before elections. That’s a written guideline. </b><br /><br />LO FUCKING L. You mean like Cap Wienberger and Ted Stevens? Don't you love it when they piss on our backs and tell us it's raining?tim in vermonthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06547980465313241972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52433865059923959952016-07-03T17:57:57.659-05:002016-07-03T17:57:57.659-05:00If the DoJ does not file charges due to "relu...If the DoJ does not file charges due to "reluctance to charge a politician with crime in an election year," there is no way they are going to keep that quiet.Hagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05011701168912339784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39371097810093885512016-07-03T17:35:29.149-05:002016-07-03T17:35:29.149-05:00Wait until they do this while swearing Hillary in ...Wait until they do this while swearing Hillary in on the Capitol steps as billions watch…<br /><br />"Repeat after me 'I, Crooked Hillary Clinton, do solemnly swear……'"Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11136257757561409957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33919684403437271442016-07-03T16:45:22.648-05:002016-07-03T16:45:22.648-05:00Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...
I guess this unfo...<i>Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...<br />I guess this unfortunate Republican crowd will take their tiny pleasures any way they can get them.<br /></i><br />I am not a Republican and I thought it was hillary-us!<br />Get it? Hillary-us! <br />Sometimes I crack myself up.Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34645904756451839342016-07-03T16:20:22.023-05:002016-07-03T16:20:22.023-05:00Ah Ms. Althouse; any trial lawyer worth his or her...Ah Ms. Althouse; any trial lawyer worth his or her salt (or what the heck in the LGBTQQ times--worth zis or zir salt) will tell you that this is the principle of primacy at work. If you can name the plaintiff "Lying Ted" or the defendant "Crooked Hillary" or the officious intermeddler "Fauxcahontas Warren" in your opening statement--and make that name stick, you are halfway to convincing the jury. Who after all wants to vote for "Crooked Hillary"?<br /><br />Trump, outrageous as he is, understands that principle of persuasion. <br /><br />Of course it helps that the stench off the corrupt baggage that Hillary trails behind her would gag a maggot--but then the Democrat voters mileage will vary. Comanche Voterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421716862520834472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6113743028253950932016-07-03T16:16:23.370-05:002016-07-03T16:16:23.370-05:00I meant is Darrell just Paul Z but WITH glasses. W...I meant is Darrell just Paul Z but WITH glasses. Wit is often destroyed by poor delivery. Mike (MJB Wolf)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00936808380090258703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59759204963386179972016-07-03T16:10:49.804-05:002016-07-03T16:10:49.804-05:00Wait. Is Darrell just Paul Z without glasses?
Wha...Wait. Is Darrell just Paul Z without glasses?<br /><br />Whatever. Paul's comment at 10:47 re Screaming Jay is astounding. <br /><br />Threadwinner. Mike (MJB Wolf)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00936808380090258703noreply@blogger.com