At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser helpfully explains why Hillary Clinton won’t be facing any criminal charges for her use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State. There are a lot of legal issues and precedents to discuss, but it can all be boiled down to one simple thing.
Setting aside the bare language of the law, there’s also a very important practical reason why officials in Clinton’s position are not typically indicted. The security applied to classified email systems is simply absurd. For this reason, a former CIA general counsel told the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, “’it’s common’ that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information.” “’It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.’ People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.”
Indicting Clinton would require the Justice Department to apply a legal standard that would endanger countless officials throughout the government, and that would make it impossible for many government offices to function effectively.
That’s the bottom line.
Of course, Clinton was not exonerated. FBI Director James Comey was scathing at times in his criticism, and would not even guarantee that the former Secretary of State’s emails hadn’t been read by foreign and hostile intelligence agencies.
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
There’s been a lot of hype about these damn emails, but Clinton deserves some criticism. She did not get a clean bill of health here, and the subject will be a legitimate issue during the campaign. That doesn’t mean that Donald Trump has handled the controversy with any deftness. By insisting repeatedly that the investigation was rigged, he undermined the case he should be making now, which is that the FBI is credible and should be taken seriously. But, instead, he’s still saying that the investigation was rigged.
That’s basically taking a weak, contentious and conspiratorial case in place of one that is backed up by the investigators. It’s particularly stupid because, now that we know that no charges will be filed, this is an entirely political controversy. And the object, for Trump, should be to get the maximum possible political mileage out of it. He could be making the case that Clinton shouldn’t be trusted to handle the nation’s national security because she did a poor job of safeguarding its secrets when she served in the Obama administration, but he’s instead saying that the FBI engaged in a coverup.
Consider that James Comey was confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2013 as the director of the FBI for a term of ten years. If Donald Trump becomes president and serves for two full terms, his presidency will end on January 20th, 2025. In other words, Comey would be the FBI Director for all but the final 18 months of a Trump presidency. And, yet, Trump’s reaction to Comey’s statement today is to question his integrity and independence and to run down the organization that Comey heads.
It’s not hard to see that this isn’t the beginning of a good working relationship, and at least some voters will notice this and be concerned about it.
Trump will rile up some people who were already convinced that Clinton is a she-devil, but he won’t get much else out of this if he continues to shift the focus off of where it can help him make a case against his opponent.
The truth is, she should not have been indicted and most people will agree that the correct decision was made. So, focusing on the decision is actually doing her a giant favor.
“There’s been a lot of hype about these damn emails…”
This is the understatement of the year
“… but Clinton deserves some criticism.”
On the contrary, what she deserves, and what she will never receive, is an apology from the media and the politicos who hyped this nothingburger of a story. I’ll get in line to slap her on the wrist when Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are subjected to the same bullcrap scrutiny for their use of personal servers while serving as SOS. In other words, never.
Comey’s comments about the server’s security reflect what I, and much more expereinced people, have been saying all along. It was known to nation states and multinationals. Friends and collegues using commercial services in and out of the country pointed to it. It was accessed by the Sec. while out of country when all of counnunications could be expected to be targeted. Those serious entities who would be interested have the capabilities to access the server and leave no traces. That’s what they do.
The information that classificed or sensitive information is passed around using commercial email infrastruture is troubling. The difficulty to access secure systems quickly is not a problem while in the office, it must by while sitting on the back deck at home that is the issue. Once would hope that “really sensitive” information is not discussed on the free Galaxy 5 tablet from ATT over their cell system or your home wifi/Comcast email account; but I may be wrong.
Its still not clear “Why” Clinton’s email server was set up in the first place. I haven’t heard a convincing job related arguement. My own inclination is that it was political, trying to keep those communications out of the hands of the GOP. As usual, too cute by half and its come back to create more trouble that it was worth.
Ridge
Those bothersome FOI requests. Wikileaks will be the only source material. lol
So a Prosecutor holds an interview with the target on Saturday, and the FOUR DAYS LATER holds a press conference releasing the finding of the criminal investigation?
Are you fucking kidding me?
It is funny reading pundits excuse this cluster fuck.
It likely just means that they had already reached a conclusion of no prosecution before interviewing her, and that the interview was essentially to close the file.
That’s exactly what it means.
Correct. That’s pretty standard.
You cannot reach that conclusion in a case where intent is central. The whole point of mens rea is that it is a matter of subjective intent
Which means the interview is damned important
This doesn’t matter. Partisans don’t care if she is guilty or not.
DOJ isn’t stupid. If there was criminal intent, they’d have found it regardless of the interview.
Hillary’s a lawyer, with access to good lawyers. They weren’t going to magically crack the case in the interview.
That doesn’t even make sense. What, they sit down with her and divine her intent from, oh, I don’t know, a psychic reading?
Intent is inferred from action. And they knew what her actions had been already. The interview was likely to determine if she was going to bullshit them, or dissemble.
They were 99.99999999% certain what they were going to do long before they talked to her. What no one seems to acknowledge, given all the “the coverup is worse than the crime” nonsense and the “she always lies” flapdoodle is that the FBI did not believe anyone, including her, had lied or covered up a damned thing. No concealment, no obstruction, no obfuscation. Those would be the only things they might have expected from her, and they didn’t get it.
In fact, it appears that everyone they talked to was forthcoming and honest about their actions. The entire fiasco was dumb, though, especially in her case, understandable (would you like Judicial Watch demanding to see everything on your computer?), but there was nothing criminal. Just dumb.
You ask the target a question based on the facts of the case.
Which any prosecutor, and I was one, does.
She already is on record having lied about one aspect (she said she had approve from State, and the IG Report found that she had not).
No, a prosecutor didn’t hold an interview with a “target.” She was interviewed by the FBI, not the AG or the US Attorney. There’s a difference. Also, I am not aware that she was ever formally designated a “target” in the legal sense.
Hers was the last interview, and they learned nothing they didn’t know already, which is what anyone who has worked in law enforcement knew, which is that there was no case there. If there had been, a grand jury would have been convened. None ever was.
The lack of a grand jury has been the most obvious indicator that this case was going nowhere.
But hey, you can take joy in the fact that the head of the FBI did something that’s never done when an investigation ends without charges. Namely, hold a press conference for the express purpose of damaging a person he doesn’t like. This was unprecedented, and most likely unethical under the guidelines.
I also wondered about the press conference, so strange to veer off into the weeds. He was almost editorializing.
It was pretty unusual. If he wants to send Gowdy and congress a message, just call them on the phone.
.
Attacking the credibility of the FBI rather than using their criticisms against Hillary to damage her seems like the stupidest response ever, until you realise that for a serial conspiracy theorist, there has to be a conspiracy behind everything.
A: Clinton did a deeply stupid thing (which, far as I know, she’s never really explained, beyond saying, yeah, it was deeply stupid).
B: She was abused for doing this deeply stupid thing more than any other politician would’ve been.
C: She did nothing that a reasonable prosecutor would prosecute.
D: Just as she was publicly abused by many because of this issue, she was also treated with deference/kid gloves, as a member of the ruling elite. Those different kinds of ‘special treatment’ make different kinds of people berserk.
I agree with Boo. If Trump were smart, he’d start asking the legitimate questions about this. But he’s not. And he’s going to lose. And what happens after this election is more interesting that what happens now.
Probably.
Comey’s finding of “extremely careless” satisfies the standard of “gross negligence” in 18 U.S.C. § 793(f).
Everything else is special pleading by people more concerned with Hillary Clinton becoming President than the administration of justice.
Didn’t Cheney blow up the requirement and piss on the ashes?
Glad to see that Eric Krupin has read two words of Comey’s report — and knows the law better than Comey does!
Then he should have said “gross negligence.” However much it pains you, he didn’t.
This case was never going anywhere, because there was no there there. I note that Comey didn’t say any classified materials that were marked “classified” at the time were involved. And the G just loves to retroactively classify stuff. Her statement that she didn’t send or receive anything that was marked “classified” stands unrebutted.
Maybe you can go hunt down Colin Powell’s emails from his tenure at State. Oh wait, You can’t. He destroyed them. Quick – call Paul Ryan.
Of course this case was never going anywhere. It wouldn’t do for Obama’s approved successor to become the first President without security clearance.
But being a Clinton while a Democrat is in the White House means never having to say you’re sorry.
She did say she was sorry. Repeatedly. She’s also innocent.
What he did say is that she sent classified emails and that:
Not marking something that you know is classified is in itself a clear violation of security rules. Saying that nothing she sent was “marked” classified is just tap-dancing about his statement.
Erm, no. The law does not require you to read invisible ink, to say nothing of reading minds.
And as has been pointed out, the people she sent emails to were all cleared to receive classified information anyway, so it’s sort of a silly argument.
Didn’t you read the quote in Booman’s original post, about how these things work in real life? Or did you just reject it because it doesn’t fit into your reality?
You obviously have never been a prosecutor, as you have no clue as to what goes into making filing decisions.
Ummm… yea… I’m kinda familiar with how this stuff works. You are the one that is obviously ignorant.
The point is, as an originator, which Clinton was, she had a responsibility to mark things appropriately. She didn’t. Also, if she knew something was classified, and not marked correctly, she had a responsibility to deal with it appropriately- she didn’t. Just re-read what Comey said.
The point is the whole e-mail chain is not secure, so no one really knows who actually saw the classified data. In the real world, when classified data contaminates an unclassified system, it is called a “spillage”. And it is a big thing when that happens.
And FYI, I agree with Comey’s arguments about prosecution, for basically all the reasons he stated. What this does demonstrate is Hillary Clinton’s complete lack of judgement, yet again.
Serious question: if she is guilty of gross negligence why was she not charged? You are asserting she skated only because she is a Presidential nominee? Could it just be an overstatement?
And while Team Hillary is celebrating her having beaten the rap, let’s take a moment to obsever how brutally this has exposed her non-stop lies about this episode.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/05/hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be-e
ven-worse-than-we-thought
None of those that are now classified were so marked at the time. I have heard nothing to rebut that.
Oh, and the official State Dept. email system was proven to have been hacked twice. Her personal server was never so proven.
So yeah, she definitely should have been using the official, albeit non-secure system. Right.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-inv
estigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
So “incompetent, not criminal” is the best you’re going to get out of that.
As for the hacking angle, now that “I did it for convenience” has been officially exposed as a lie, I suppose she might as well try “I did it to keep the materials more secure.” If Hillary partisans will believe that Bill only wanted to talk to Lynch about their grandchildren, they’ll clearly believe anything.
Boy, you just can’t get over this, can you?
The law is rather clear that there must be notice of the “classified” status, or there must be other clear and convincing evidence that the person knows it’s classified.
These rather simple legal considerations are obviously above your pay grade.
Save us all from Internet Darrows.
Sigh. This entire episode makes me ill. Partisans treat it as nothing while the Clintons continue to poison anything they touch.
On a positive note, my girl Michele was picked up by Clinton. Here’s to hoping she makes it up into the echelons of power. She’s one of the good ones:
Link
you dating Michele?
Haha no sorry, didn’t mean to imply girlfriend. But we have been friends since 2007.
Congratulations. Nice to see the next generation pick up the traditions, no?
I hope by the time she gets to that power, she’s still someone you’d like to have as a friend.
Trump mishandles this particular Clinton controversy in standard form: when conservatives don’t hear the outcome they want – no matter how clearly the controversy has been proven to have no legs – conservatives then double-down and demand more “investigations” to produce the smoking gun.
Witness the ridiculous lengths some states have gone to “prove” that Planned Parenthood is engaging in selling baby parts or whatever. When thorough and detailed investigations prove no wrong doing, conservatives demand another investigation because SURELY there’s something there to prove.
Trump has claimed everything is rigged, especially if something hasn’t gone his way. Well stuff is rigged, and that’s for sure. But Trump is just taking the usual conservative fall back position: if the Fibbies didn’t find enough indict Clinton, it’s because their investigation was rigged.
Color me unsurprised. Trump is ham-handed. He and his handlers aren’t smart enough to use this in a more intelligent or nuanced fashion. His wording appeals to his base, and he knows that.
“So, focusing on the decision is actually doing her a giant favor. “
His whole candidacy is actually doing her a giant favor, methinks.
Both Hillary and Trump are their own worst enemy.
So as I heard Comey’s comments, he seems more pissed that the whole security system is so vulnerable. And he’s kind of helpless to do anything about it. Any Senator who gets classified info probably sends an email about it to someone on their g-mail account. They don’t mean to be bad boys and girls, but nonetheless they are violating the letter (f) of the law. And, of course, government servers aren’t so secure themselves. See “Bradley Manning” and the other guy.
Comey is trying to say that the absence of evidence is evidence. Someone would cover their track if they hacked, and since we didn’t find that, we have to assume the server was vulnerable. Weak argument.
I also find that curious. But he seemed to take it all out on Clinton. I also was curious on why a private server is anymore insecure than the government server. The idea her servers were possibly hacked is by now accepted due to her negligence. Bothersome to me.
Anyone who has ever worked with the FBI would know that it is not credible. They lie to other law enforcement routinely. And the fact that they don’t play well with others is aggravated by the fact that they have no common sense, let alone street sense.
I basically see it as the combination of Boss Who Tells IT “Do x” and then IT has no choice even though it violates policies and Person Who Has a Limited Grasp of Technology. Both of those things are tremendously common in the IT industry and probably even worse in the government.
It was a stupid idea but endemic to people in HRC’s position and it could have been much worse than it was, but it wasn’t. It doesn’t fill me with confidence about her ability to handle the technological future but that’s nothing new.
None of them seem able to handle the tech future.
I always had a slightly different take.
My understanding……Obama and Clinton came into office in 2008 completely in love with their Blackberry’s. Obama was told to ditch it and the NSA gave him a monstrosity that was as big as a phone book, and not very intuitive to use. It was kludge. But it was secure. Obama told them no way, he was going to use his Blackberry. That he was the POTUS and they needed to find a solution. So the NSA came up with a device very like a Blackberry in appearance, but it cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to develope quickly. Obama was POTUS, he got what he wanted.
But Clinton was NOT president, they told her she had to use a piece of shit device that was kludge, AND hook up to the State Dept system, which was shit. AND her personal emails would be forever accessible to Judicial Watch. So she asked private people, and they suggested a ‘server’.
.
And of what importance is federal law next to the convenience of Hillary Clinton?
Oh, the next four years are going to be a barrel of laughs, I tell you.
Boring, Eric.
But not wrong.
HRC and husband really do more questionable stuff (not necessarily illegal or unethical) and the press really does target them more for it which makes them say “fuck it” and not even try to avoid it. Which is completely opposite of how Obama does things.
Obama.
We are going to miss that guy.
.
of Federal law were involved. There’s no evidence of that. Non-indictment is pretty good evidence to the contrary. Words have meanings. “Federal” and “law” are words. Also too, facts matter.
Of what use is federal law when it makes it absolutely impossible to do your job adequately and leaves the country, and perhaps the entire world, in danger? Everybody knew what she was doing, including the President, who refused the same way she did. Nobody cared, because they knew her way was a damn sight better than using outdated technology.
Which she should not have done.
No doubt.
But I doubt she even knew at the time what a server was. She wanted what she wanted, and someone (there is ALWAYS a ‘someone’) said ‘I know…’.
The upper class wants what they want, when they want it. They don’t want to hear how much it costs or what the future could hold.
.
Why make this a class thing. How about just about age, unfamiliarity. Or, perhaps, just a defensive error. The Clintons have some pretty good cause for being defensive, and sometimes in that posture, you make errors.
Or maybe just a “I need good technology if I’m actually going to do my job, and the official offerings are ridiculous” thing?
That doesnt fly because Kerry is a better SoS than HRC and he uses the government channels AFAIK.
https:/theintercept.com/2016/07/05/washington-has-been-obsessed-with-punishing-secrecy-violations-u
ntil-hillary-clinton
A shoddy home server? You mean there were no qualified IT people responsible for it? And after all we all know the law is different for the elites. Sounds like a hit job.
Who set it up, who worked on it, and vulnerabilities.
Hillary Clinton email controversy
And some more vulnerabilities:
Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer? — Krebs on Security
I think “shoddy home server” is appropriate.
That must be some part of the carelessness charge. She is going to have to respond to that. I was never bothered by her having a private server or her intent but those circumstances you describe and Comey’s charge need some response IMO. Trump will get around to hammering her on it.
I think he first wrote it on twitter, but it is also circulating in meme-form.
I think Snowden is a genuine hero, but that’s an absolutely stupid line — and he knows it. He didn’t “break classification rules”: he knowingly and intentionally committed felonies that, if he had been tried, would have landed him in jail for decades.
What Hillary did was inexcusably stupid, but it’s nowhere near what he did.
Blaming Hillary Clinton’s appalling lack of judgement on the difficulty of using the State Department’s classified email does a huge disservice to the millions of American’s who work with classified information every day and have to follow the very same rules, no matter how much it slows down their job. Yes, dealing with classified information is a pain in the but, but there is a reason for that… The “rules are for little people” response is pretty weak tea to me considering that literally millions of other people are working within the same set of rules and they haven’t demonstrated the same lack of judgment and common sense that Hillary did.
And you know what would happen if one of the little people got caught doing half of what Hillary did? Nothing good… If they were not prosecuted (And let’s hope that everybody else gets the same leeway because of “intent” that Comey gave Hillary) they most certainly would end up out of a job and most likely un-employable in their career for the rest of their lives. But I understand that these days, justice, or at least “administrative action” is only for the little people…
Quite a few of her colleagues were also investigated. In fact, it sounds like Comey blames the entire State Department. None of them are being prosecuted, either.
Sure. For one thing, they aren’t really the little people either. And don’t get me wrong- I’m not saying that she should be prosecuted, I’m saying that we should have one standard of conduct that applies to everyone.
Tell that to Jeffrey Stirling and Thomas Drake.
No. Just, no.
I always hear people who claim that “If I did that I’d be in jail!”
Which is almost always bullshit. It actually takes some doing to go to jail (much less prison) for a criminal offense, if the offense doesn’t involve serious bodily injury, murder or sexual assault. Almost no one goes to jail on a first property crime offense, or even a second. And I’m talking about cases that can be proved, not stupid crap like this.
And how many “little people” make a bad investment in property, lose $40K, and then have serial investigations of them, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars (and costing said “little people” a fortune in legal fees), all of which repeatedly reach the same conclusion – “no crime committed”? How many “little people” would be investigated at all for such a situation?
I’ll tell you: None. Zero.
Pretty sure that needs correction to “tens [pushing 100, IIRC] of millions” (i.e., taxpayer money poured down drain mainly by Ken Starr on Whitewater witchhunt).
Oh, I assure you- plenty of people have had “administrative sanctions” applied to them for doing much less than what they caught Hillary doing. And that includes loss of security clearances, and termination of employment. But it’s all just spin to you, no doubt.
the anger online from Sanders supporters is palpable, almost like they lost their last chance to win
Even if Clinton drops out it’s still unlikely Sanders would be the nominee but it’s a moot point given this part of the campaign is over and now it’s time to move towards crushing the Republicans.
I’d say it’s apparent from this very thread that some Sanders supporters are furious that they didn’t get to see a perp walk. Because nothing less would satisfy them.
HA! Goodman is reportedly inconsolable.
At least now he can work on attaining the emotional age of 10.
But still.
You did read Eric K’s comments in this very thread, right?
don’t mean to imply (as IlJimP did imply) that Eric’s comments are representative of all “Sanders supporters”, not just “some”. You did read my reply to him, right?
So, again, at least you said “some”.
Of course not all! After all, centerfielddj and nicholas, for example, are two Sanders supporters, as they’ve pointed out more than once on this blog, who aren’t joining the hounds baying after Hillary, and offer reasoned-out comments on the positions they take. You are a thoughtful and evenhanded Sanders supporter whom I’ve never considered among the kneejerk brigade. But, being the honest person that you clearly are, you surely must acknowledge that there are some among Bernie’s fans who are in fact irrationally and excessively vituperative when it comes to Clinton and those who support her.
I do have to point out that you are damn near alone around here in being willing to call out excesses on your own side, rather than ignoring, excusing, or even uprating them.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t think Jim literally meant all Sanders supporters; in reading his comment I assumed the “some”, based on my familiarity with his posting history. He’s not an intemperate commenter.
I don’t know how long you’ve been around here, but I for one have noticed a distressing exodus over the primary season of several intelligent, thoughtful commenters who happened to support Clinton and finally had a bellyful of the incessant, vociferous, and often nasty barrage of attacks and insults directed at Clinton and her supporters by a subset of Sanders supporters here. As a person who entered this primary season with no great fondness for either candidate (and remaining so), I have to tell you that the balance of vitriol I’ve observed has been very much on the subset side.
For one obvious example, you are not with me in that. If it’s problematic that I’m “damn near alone” in doing that (and I agree that it is!), then why wouldn’t you choose to join me in doing so? That would at least be a start at fixing that problem.
Pretty sure I’ve seen uprates from you when I’ve done precisely that; not so much, though, when I’m calling out something offensive from “your own side” (and fuck do I hate that formulation and what it says about the decline in this place!).
This sub-thread being a perfect example of that.
But no, you perceive me to be of the opposing tribe. So I get applause from you if I “call out” infractions by (what you perceive to be) my tribe, but if I call them out when committed by your tribe, instead you defend/excuse/explain away the infractions.
It’s quite remarkable to me to see you lament that I am “damn near alone” in this without noticing what an indictment that is of you and “your own side”. Surely, you can’t possibly believe no Hillary supporter has written anything here likewise worthy of “calling out”. Why is that left to me?
you actually uprated Jim’s offensively indiscriminant comment!
I rest my case!
RE:
I am a Sanders supporter. Please link to me expressing “anger online” over the Clinton non-indictment (which in fact I predicted [approvingly, though I may not have stated that at the time] right here in these pages). You can’t, of course.
These blanket, stereotyping generalizations, besides being incredibly annoying, are very harmful to the possibility of rational, civil discussion/discourse. (Equally so when they’re indiscriminately characterizing all Hillary supporters as “Hillbots”, etc., obviously.)
I’m really tired of being slandered in this manner.
Just stop it!
Now!
Please!
I’m not going to link to Twitter and FB, if the comment doesn’t apply to you then it wasn’t directed at you.
Hillary supporters are poopooheads!
Hey, if it doesn’t apply to you, then it wasn’t directed at you! You’re a Hillary supporter, but . . . . um . . . er . . . uh . . .
Besides it being an absurd dodge, whether you’ll link to twitter or fb is completely irrelevant, hence unresponsive, since I neither said nor implied that NO Sanders supporter merits criticism. So direct your criticism where it applies, then! That’s all I’m saying! The problem is your indiscriminant brush, not whether any Sanders supporters exist whom it colors accurately. That’s a diversion/mis-direction.
I didn’t reply to one of your comments so I’m not sure why you think my initial comment was directed in your direction. You are one of very few here that have been generally respectful from the Sanders supporters side but you can easily see what I’m referring to even on this thread.
I purposefully posted a stand alone comment so as not to single anyone out
By “purposefully post[ing] a stand alone comment (but making a statement about undifferentiated “Sanders supporters” in it — which, as I’ve already noted, implies all Sanders supporters absent any other modifiers), you indeed did not single anyone out. (But why the hell not? Direct your comment, specifically, at those that it applies to. What’s so hard about this bone-simple [to me anyway!] principle? I really don’t get how/why it could require all this elaboration and explanation! Seems obvious to me.)
Instead, by your indiscriminant (and thus inaccurate) statement about “Sanders supporters” (undifferentiated) you defamed those of us that it does not fit.
Seriously, what’s hard about this? I don’t get it. I find it hard to believe you’d be fine with these tables being turned on you.
I don’t read every comment on here so I’m not sure why you’re taking this so personally, do you have something to feel guilty about?
The comment threads here aren’t really open to discussion anymore, it’s very disappointing since I used to enjoy reading this site and all the comments.
insinuation, that is. (Not least because it’s yet more diversion/misdirection).
Cannot imagine how I could have made the principle I’m advocating any clearer; likewise that it has nothing whatsoever whether it’s me or someone else, or whether they’re from “my tribe” or from “your tribe” that you’re indiscriminately defaming with your over-generalized negative criticism. I’ve explained it, with examples, every way I can think of. Don’t see any point in repetition or further explication at this point, as you seem determined not to get it.
(Hint: “I’m sorry/I regret that I invalidly lumped all Sanders supporters together in my negative comment that actually validly applies only to some Sanders supporters. I can see now how that would be offensive to the Sanders supporters it doesn’t fit — or to me if the shoe were on the other foot. I’ll try to avoid doing that in the future.” See, that’s not so hard! Not exactly rocket science.)
that would imply I am sorry, but I’m not so let’s move on
One quick Googled hit:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/bernie-sanders-fbi-hillary-clinton-email/
You’re clearly not among that subset, so it doesn’t apply to you.
see reply to Jim just above.
This comment of yours I’m replying to shares the exact same irrelevance, for the exact same reasons.
To be consistent: the headline of the CNN article you linked (though not the content of the article, making the headline a bad one) commits exactly the same infraction I objected to when Jim did it. The tweets there that I did skim seem stupid to me. So what? Irrelevant! I never suggested NO Sanders supporters ever say stupid stuff. Obviously, some do, same as some Hillary supporters do (how easy it would be to similarly cherry-pick examples right from these very pages!). Duh!
My consistent point here recently has been: so then (specifically) address (criticize, mock, ridicule, etc., . . . whatever floats your boat) the specific offending comments; don’t tar an entire class with the same brush (which is just as offensive!).
And no, if you just write “Sanders supporters” (or equivalently, “Hillary supporters”) without further modification, “some” is not implied, “all” is. Nobody would take “oranges are orange” to mean “only some oranges are orange”. And it would be absurd to then say, “Oh, you’re an orange that isn’t orange? well then my statement doesn’t apply to you, therefore it wasn’t directed at you!” Such an absurd interpretation renders the original statement pointless and meaningless: “Oranges are orange (except ones that aren’t); my statement applies only to those that are, therefore it’s only directed at them.”
He can’t help himself.
It was a bad decision by Hillary, born of arrogance. It was an unforced error. One that I will never defend, so Hillary Stans can knock themselves out defending her.
The truth is, she should not have been indicted and most people will agree that the correct decision was made.
Tell that to Jeffrey Stirling and Thomas Drake.
For the love of God — what she did was nothing like Drake and Sterling and you know it. You’re comparing apples and bowling balls.
And no, neither Drake nor Sterling should have been indicted.