The Editorial Board of the Washington Post seems Very Concerned over how Donald Trump can win the election, and here’s their response
AS THE 2016 presidential campaign draws to a close, Donald Trump is airing commercials that present him as a change agent who will shake up Washington. Not a mainstream politician, exactly, but nothing to be afraid of, either. This appeal seems to be having some success, as Mr. Trump pulls even with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in some national polls and surpasses her in likely voters’ judgment on who is more trustworthy.
Ultimately, though, this appeal can succeed only if voters succumb to last-minute distractions and ignore or forget Mr. Trump’s record. Allow us to offer a few reminders.
You didn’t think this was going to be a positive editorial, did you?
“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.â€
This lie is emblematic, for two reasons. First, Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters; every major-party nominee of the modern era has respected this basic norm of transparency.
Uh huh
- “I’ve never received nor sent any material that was marked classified”
- “At this point, what difference does it make?”
- “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. ” (blaming the video for the Benghazi attack in public while telling her daughter in private it was a terrorist attack)
Then
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.â€
They often aren’t sending their best. The crime reports show this. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to bring in 10’s of thousands of people from the Middle East who cannot be vetted, won’t be vetted, and resettle them over the objections of US citizens. We’ve seen how well this has worked out in Europe.
“You’d be in jail.â€
American democracy survives the passions and animus stirred up every four years because its leaders always have accepted this rule: The loser acknowledges the winner, and the winner leaves the loser in peace. Mr. Trump disavows both sides of that time-tested formula.
She would be in jail if her name wasn’t Hillary Clinton. And the WPEB would cheer this if she was a Republican.
“I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.â€
Mr. Trump’s celebration of torture provides one answer to that question. His vow to kill the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists offers another. A commander in chief in the U.S. system has vast powers, often beyond the reach of Congress or the courts to check. Mr. Trump could in fact order the CIA to resume waterboarding suspects — and worse — to the immense discredit of the country.
Why such a concern over terrorists who would be happy to slit the throats of the members of the WPEB?
“I’ve always felt fine about Putin. I think he’s a strong leader, he’s a powerful leader.â€
Remember when Hillary trotted out her “reset button”? And called Bashar Assad a reformer? When she pledged support and said how great Mohamed Morsi was, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization?
Some addition whining from the WPEB continues, till we get to the end
“Make America great again.â€
It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,†the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,†U.S. wealth has been “stripped†away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.†To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.
Of course, he doesn’t have contempt. I dislike defending Trump, but, poll after poll show that people think the economy is not doing well. Really, though, this has nothing to do with anything the WPEB highlights, it’s the phrase itself: liberals hate America and all it stands for, and would like to tear it down.
We believe, as we have said, that Ms. Clinton is well-prepared to serve as president. But even voters who disagree — who believe that Ms. Clinton is unqualified or ethically distasteful — cannot realistically argue that she represents a danger to the republic.
Mr. Trump is such a danger. Only by forgetting or ignoring what he has told us could Americans decide otherwise.
Uh huh. A woman who put her convenience over national security. A woman who intentionally attempted to destroy women who credibly accused her husband of rape. A woman who used her position as Secretary of State as a means to enrich herself and her family through pay for play to her so-called charitable foundation, and used her charitable foundation to enrich herself while spending a whopping 6% on actual charity. She puts herself over country. That’s a danger.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
It’s a measure of the quality of the information you are providing.
So your calling Bernie Sanders a liar? You Clintonites hate everyone dont you….this is all from his supporters websites….not some far right wing…..I never use right websites when discussing the left….that is pointless…..
You apparently don’t know much about the political process.
don’t need to know much to know HUFFINGTON POST SAID HILLARY DID NOTHING AS SENATOR….HUFFPO is all in on the left but even they dislike HRC’s treatment of Obama…
No one cares except a few concern trolls.
Typical of the Clinton Machine….NO ONE MATTERS not even Barak Obama, Michelle Obama their children or the millions of blacks who are watching HRC TARNISH OBAMA’s Legacy….
got cha…
here that black nation….The CLINTONS DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU>>>>>ONLY YOUR VOTE.
Oh? Did Bernie Sanders accuse Clinton of murder?
None of the emails were properly marked classified. Three had portion markings for confidential, two by mistake, the third in an agency dispute.
Now your just making shit up…..
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified†to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
drowningpuppies,
Perhaps this will help:
Clinton was responsible as an individual, and as a supervisor.
Y’all talking about Marina the maid?
HRC and her army of goons showed they improperly handled secret and top secret information.
Other, more serious laws make it a crime to knowingly disclose classified information to someone not authorized to receive it, LIKE THE MAID…those hired to run her server and god knows who else…. and threaten punishment for anyone who through “gross negligence” allows national defense information to be removed from its proper place of custody.
These top secret emails proper place WAS NOT ON CLINTONS PRIVATE SERVER!
No. Comey testified that none were properly marked classified, and three had portion markings. Two of these were later found to be mistakenly marked by State.
That is correct.
That is also correct. Needless to say, if there was any question about their sensitivity, they should never have been sent by email.
That’s right. They were sloppy, though, as you say, not criminal.
Their proper place wasn’t with Internet email, dotgov or no.
Well, goddam, the Zboys have finally figured it out.
Oh? Did Bernie Sanders accuse Clinton of murder?
Nice try ZACH…NO ONE accused HRC of murder…we just all find it interesting that so many people surrounding HRC end up dead, committing suicide on the run, in prison or pleading the 5th… We all find it intersting that she surrounds herself with people that are forced to hire an army of lawyers just to stay out of jail..
Your friends define you…her friends are all in jail or under investigation and most likely would be in jail and even more interesting….on the run….or pleading the fifth or being granted IMMUNITY…….
We all find that a bit interesting…..
Well, goddam, the Zboys have finally figured it out.
Im just getting warmed up……lolololol…..ZACH is a poor operative if he is getting paid by the DNC or HRC….The amount of lunacy surrounding HRC is indefensible and its only because of a million man MSM that she is not on death row…..seriously.
That’s right. They were sloppy, though, as you say, not criminal.
Breaking the law is breaking the law…there are no degrees of breaking the law…your either speeding or your not…..its not that you intended to speed, or you were busy thinking about something else….
She broke the law…..it does not matter if she intended to break it or not….Unless of course your being protected by the Attorney General.
Their proper place wasn’t with Internet email, dotgov or no.
This is correct….but the facts are….THEY WERE with Clintonmail.com….they were not in their proper place and therefor the law was broken….It does not matter if they intended to break the law or not….that is the most ludicrous excuse Comey could have ever offered up……
Im glad your finally on board with the fact that HRC is guilty of the mishandling of top secret and secret documents which breaks the law….regardless of intent.
John Deutch:
Deutch was CIA director from May 1995 until December 1996. He came under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland.
An internal CIA investigation found that he stored and processed hundreds of files of highly classified material on unprotected home computers that he and family members also used to connect to the Internet, making the information potentially vulnerable to hackers.
My oh My what was the outcome of this case?
Deutch apologized for his actions and was pardoned by President Bill Clinton before the Justice Department could file a misdemeanor plea deal for mishandling government secrets.
Just wow….this sets the tone in which the Clintons do not believe state secrets are something to be protected….it goes all the way back to Bill Himself.
It’s always been our position. However, claims of criminality were always overblown. Nor is the classification regime keeping pace with technology, and how people communicate. Consider the process for approving drone strikes, which only have a window of a few minutes.
The difference is that Deutch purposefully put highly classified information on his home computers, while Clinton inadvertently had classified information on her email system.
The difference is that Deutch purposefully put highly classified information on his home computers, while Clinton inadvertently had classified information on her email system.
It does not matter….again your trying to show degrees of breaking the law. Your claim is HRC did not know these documents were on her server. Perhaps but they were on HER server ergo she is guilty of the mishandling of secret information since the server was established under her authority and direction.
However lets look at intent……
As MSNBC claims Hillary Clinton set up a private server to circumvent FOIA laws….this shows intent to break the law….provable? Probably not….but why have a private server and then mix political with work related emails on the same server?
quite clearly to prevent foia from finding out what your up too….
In addition all emails related to Benghazi were bleach bitted two weeks after a request from congress…..a clear violation of the law…destruction of evidence….after said evidence was hit with a subpoena.
The crime just keeps on flowing for HRC.
It doesn’t matter. The battle over the designation can happen at a later time. The fact is that they were marked as such and the maid had no security clearance to handle the documents at all.
Which claim? That she received the PDB?
Of that the PDB is classified?
And once again, the maid never should have had access to the secure fax machine. Clinton directing her to print out the material is a crime.
Most people know that when they are caught in a hole, they should stop digging.
You keep shoveling.
Once again, the emails were classified because of their content. That is something that the maid would not know. It also doesn’t matter whether the information was from State Department employees because they thought that Clinton’s email server and address was secure and had been vetted. After all, what Secretary of State would be so reckless as to have an unsecured sever handling classified materials?
It was up to Clinton to secure the server and get it approved. She did not and in doing so, broke the law.
Keep digging. Even on the intranet, the information is sent by email.
Either way, you are now saying that Clinton set up a server that was outside of the system to handle potentially sensitive materials.
That’s a crime.
No, that is totally relevant. Email is a form of communication – an electronic document.
And your point? You’ve tried this tactic before and it fails then as it fails now. Your position would be akin to someone releasing classified information and then saying “it isn’t classified because it is out in the wild.” That is simply non-sensical.
Once again, your point? The Act has been amended and strengthened over the years including being amended to include emails and electronic transmissions in 2009, as well as there was an Executive Order on the subject as well.
It is clear that your support of Clinton is unwavering, and that simply means that nothing – not the laws, not her actions, not her treatment of people – will ever dissuade you from that support.
But we are talking about documents, information and actions that people outside of Clinton have been prosecuted for for their actions that were far less egregious than what Clinton did.
It is clear that you have never had to do through the training to handle secure information or else you would not be making the claims you are.
Keep digging that hole.
PS – you mentioned earlier that Colin Powell had done something similar to what Clinton had done. First, he hadn’t as the law wasn’t updated at that time. Secondly, if he had, we would be saying that he should be prosecuted for the crime.
Only children want to make the argument of “he did it too!” which is what you are saying. Adults don’t make such an argument.
Finally, to support the point that Powell was not under the same regulations:
In short, Clinton set up the server in violation of Federal Regulations and used the server to avoid FOIA requests – both of which are crimes.
The law doesn’t make the distinction you claim.
Clearly not to avoid FOIA. To do that, you would establish a separate email account. Or just pick up the phone.
Possibly. The person who did so testified that he did it on his own.
Of course it matters in a criminal investigation, as it would show willful disregard and intent.
So not by email, as you had stated. Can you provide a primary source for your modified claim?
Certainly some of the content should never have been emailed. Keep in mind that most of the content came from career State employees. If you dug deep enough, you would find you would have to prosecute most of the State Department.
No. It doesn’t matter if it was a dotgov address or not. Classified information is not supposed to be sent by Internet email.
No. She set up a server to handle day-to-day communications.
That is actually a valid defense in criminal court. Just because the government says it is a secret doesn’t mean it is covered by the Espionage Act. However, they would still be liable for administrative penalties.
Um, no.
An executive order is administrative. You might want to actually read the Espionage Act and the case law. If the government says the front page of the New York Times is a secret, it doesn’t mean the government can successfully prosecute someone for handing someone the New York Times.
That has nothing to do with the Espionage Act, but the FOIA. FOIA applied to Powell’s email. Powell had classified information on his AOL account, and thousands of emails were not properly archived.
Under FOIA, Clinton had an duty to archive government records. Clinton said most of the emails were to dotgov addresses, so were archived. Additionally, she turned over her emails to her attorneys to determine which should be archived.
A century of case law certainly does make the distinction.
See the Comey / Gowdy discussion. The intent and disregard was there.
If the maid had access to the room where the fax machine was, that’s a violation of the law. If she printed or collected the fax papers with the PDB, that’s a violation of the law. The fact that Clinton directed her to act, is against the law.
No you wouldn’t because the employees thought they were sending the information on a secure server. In reality, Clinton set up the unsecure server and it handled classified information.
You can repeat that all you want. It doesn’t make it true.
Even if one accepts your (false) premise, it still comes back to Clinton’s actions that set up the server, which is a violation of the law.
What part of that don’t you understand?
Um….yes.
Day to day communications from the State Department? Guess what? That is illegal as well.
Keep digging.
Which in most cases carries the weight of law.
You might want to take your own advice because what you are putting down ain’t the law.
If the government says the front page of the New York Times is a secret, it doesn’t mean the government can successfully prosecute someone for handing someone the New York Times.
No one said that it did. What your previous defense was that as the New York Times had a story on a classified issue, that made the materiel not classified. That’s not the case.
No one said it did. But Hillary’s avoidance of the FOIA shows that she was breaking ANOTHER law.
I didn’t realize that Powell was Secretary of State in 2009.
Oh wait, He wasn’t.
Are you that dense? I mean, it really comes down that. Your arguments get beaten down by facts and yet you still bring them up over and over.
Furthermore, I’ll say it again since it seems that it went over your head: IF COLIN POWELL BROKE THE LAW HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.
No it doesn’t.
Even so, Clinton knew there was classified material coming through her unsecured, illegal server.
No matter how you squirm, she is guilty of a crime and many crimes.
Comey: “We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard.”
So, no. You can’t provide a primary source. The reason we asked is because your first claim was false.
No. It is not appropriate to send classified information over the Internet, even to a dotgov address.
Think about it. Why would they have a separate secure system, if dotgov email was sufficient?
In any case, once you understand this, then the rest of the pieces fall into place. Clinton already had an email server. She decided to use the personal email for day-to-day business, while she used State’s secure system for classified information. As is common, some information leaked into the email system, mostly from career State employees sending her information, which she would then sometimes forward.
We’d be happy to take a look. Please cite the statute.
No. It’s just against policy.
What we said was that the government saying something is classified doesn’t mean it falls under the Espionage Act.
If she wanted to avoid the FOIA, she would not have had a single email address. Duh.
The FOIA has been in effect since 1967. Email is a government record. Electronic records have been explicitly covered since 1996. What changed in this regard are the procedures and policies.
You don’t provide facts, but make claims. We continue to provide citations, which you then ignore.
See Gorin v. United States, 1941. The Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act was only constitutional if the defendant had “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.â€
The FBI determined that it was inadvertent, not purposeful.
Once again, refer to the Comey / Gowdy discussion and not the FBI statement.
I guess you missed that I already did.
Already cited as being illegal.
It is appropriate if the servers handling the requests are secure. What part about that don’t you understand?
You didn’t say that but even still, the point is the handling of the classified information that is against the law.
Duh. There is an email from a Clinton person who says they wanted to avoid FOIA requests. The Clinton camp says they were joking, but isn’t it interesting that when FOIA requests were made, they came back empty until the Clinton server was discovered?
Lucky? Or intentional?
No matter what, since the requests came back empty, Hillary violated the FOIA.
So you now admit that Clinton broke the FOIA as well as policies and procedures.
At least you are making progress.
And once again since you seem to have difficulty with this, if Powell broke the law, he should be prosecuted as well. But as we are talking about Clinton, your repeated childish defense of “they did it too!” rings hollow.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
Which has been shown to be false.
BTW – Gorin v. United States does not justify what you said as an excuse.
You wrote:
When I said intent didn’t always matter, you replied tht it did.
Your own case says otherwise and does so in citing the law saying “intent or reason to believe.”
In fact, the Espionage Act is full of the reference “or reason to believe.”
Is it your contention that Hillary is so stupid that she doesn’t think classified information can be used to harm the country?
Is that really where you want to go?
The fact of the matter is that we know she had intent and reason to believe she was mishandling classified information.
We have, and nothing in that discussion contradicts Comey’s statement that the FBI “did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard.â€
You did provide a link to the New York Post, a secondary source, but it doesn’t provide a primary citation, such as a link and page reference, or even a direct quote, and fails to connect the Presidential Daily Briefing to the maid.
Please provide the statute.
Think about it. Why would they have a separate secure system, if dotgov email was sufficient?
That is incorrect. We can’t make you read the statute or case law.
The act of classification is administrative, as is the handling of classified information. Now, if that information is shown to concern national security, and if it is shown that the person had intent to transfer it to an unauthorized person, then it may be a criminal act. There was no intent on Clinton’s part to transfer the information to an unauthorized person.
She didn’t fully comply, but it still requires intent, which the FBI has said the evidence is insufficient.
She didn’t think she was exposing classified information because classified information would not normally be sent to her by email.
In any case, this has already been investigated by the FBI, and career investigators have determined that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
There are none who are so blind than those who will not see.
Comey admitted in the discussion that the evidence showed intent. You just don’t want to admit it.
The connection is that the PDB came in over the secure fax. That would be the fax that the maid had access to in spite of rules and regulations saying the equipment must be kept secure as well.
Apparently you don’t understand that even in the secure systems, the emails and electronic communications move by addresses.
Once again, go read the act. Go read the very case you cited. Neither says what that intent alone is required. You have hung your hat on something that is wrong.
And once again, Comey admitted under oath that the intent was there.
Yet she forwarded classified information from that email to other people. Are you saying that the email was magically forwarded without her knowledge and happened because unicorns pressed “send?”
The investigators made no such determination. Comey did. That determination was then brutally beaten down by Gowdy.
Quit waving your hands in the general direction. Provide the exact quotes, in context, that you claim say he agreed the evidence showed intent. Are you saying Comey was lying in his original statement?
In other words, you will repeat your claim rather than provide evidence.
Apparently you don’t understand that the government’s secure systems don’t connect to the Internet, so Russia can’t try and hack the system.
Gorin v. United States requires “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” That is the intent the FBI says was not there.
She wasn’t aware it was classified. None of it was properly marked classified. Only three had portion markings.
Indeed, it was the unanimous decision of the investigators that charges were not warranted.