U.S. presidential candidate has no business either requesting or tactily approving of any foreign government's theft of State Dept. communications, least of all Russia.
Which is a nice point to have, except that it's at the end of a garden path leading away from Clinton's original intentional mishandling of state secrets, tucked behind her having panicked when this was widely disclosed, somewhere over by where she immediately began bald-faced lying about it to the public, the Congress, Justice and the FBI, where you can't quite see it because of how she — not knowing how to shred a commodity PC — turned all the prima facie evidence over to a private coterie of hackers and lawyers themselves lacking the security clearance they'd've required under anything like the rule of law or responsible statesmanship. But if you'd like to focus on boogeymen both foreign and domestic instead of facing that unpleasantness honestly, I feel you.
We are a sovereign state, regardless of the shape we’re in, and I feel very strongly that we must put this Hillary/emails question to rest on our own, by the rules, if we want our democracy and dignity back.
Which we’ve done, because it’s okay if you’re a Republican… Strike that, meant to say a jingoistic, right-wing, authoritarian, my-country-right-or-wrong, never-met-a-war-she-didn’t-like proud, close, personal friend of Henry Kissinger. Maybe Maj. Jason Brezler should've thought about that before he betrayed his country and the iron rule of law we care so much about.
Legitimizing a dangerous wanna-be autocrat (I refer to Putin, in this case) by accepting his "help" in return for an apparently expedient solution is a staggeringly irresponsible idea on several levels, and in the end, most likely no solution at all. That's my broader point.
Let's remember that Trump's call for the emails to be found is rhetorical. Before anyone starts calving, we should probably think back to the wider context, here. Clinton's, as obvious as she is lying, ongoing conviction that the law is for filler people.
Involving an adversarial nation and Putin, a notorious arm-twister, blackmailer, extortionist, and backstabber, in this issue just to provide stolen, sensitive (but as far as anyone has yet been able to prove, not illegally-deleted or top secret) information is no way to uphold the rule of U.S. law, let alone conduct foreign policy or domestic politics.
Which, again, ignores that nothing at all’s come of Trump’s throwaway line, except Clinton campaign hysterics. It ignores, also, Clinton’s blatant lies about whether secrets were involved, or whether emails were deleted illegally, but that’s a stale conversation by this point.
We’ve discussed the Clinton emails whitewash to death, already. So let’s whittle our focus down to what’s new here, which to me seems to be two-minutes’ hate for the president of the Russian Federation. Wow, do I feel differently about this than you. For one thing, doesn’t it strike you as odd that when confronted with indisputable evidence of her political villainy, Clinton’s wag-the-dog instincts are to escalate with the Russians to make it all go away? This is not a tangent, for me. Clinton and her State Department have made, when they weren’t too busy being the lead agency for Keystone XL as well as TPP/TISA and the like, a point of expanding NATO right up to the Russian border. It’s hard for me to imagine that you haven’t by no...
U.S. presidential candidate has no business either requesting or tactily approving of any foreign government's theft of State Dept. communications, least of all Russia.
Which is a nice point to have, except that it's at the end of a garden path leading away from Clinton's original intentional mishandling of state secrets, tucked behind her having panicked when this was widely disclosed, somewhere over by where she immediately began bald-faced lying about it to the public, the Congress, Justice and the FBI, where you can't quite see it because of how she — not knowing how to shred a commodity PC — turned all the prima facie evidence over to a private coterie of hackers and lawyers themselves lacking the security clearance they'd've required under anything like the rule of law or responsible statesmanship. But if you'd like to focus on boogeymen both foreign and domestic instead of facing that unpleasantness honestly, I feel you.
We are a sovereign state, regardless of the shape we’re in, and I feel very strongly that we must put this Hillary/emails question to rest on our own, by the rules, if we want our democracy and dignity back.
Which we’ve done, because it’s okay if you’re a Republican… Strike that, meant to say a jingoistic, right-wing, authoritarian, my-country-right-or-wrong, never-met-a-war-she-didn’t-like proud, close, personal friend of Henry Kissinger. Maybe Maj. Jason Brezler should've thought about that before he betrayed his country and the iron rule of law we care so much about.
Legitimizing a dangerous wanna-be autocrat (I refer to Putin, in this case) by accepting his "help" in return for an apparently expedient solution is a staggeringly irresponsible idea on several levels, and in the end, most likely no solution at all. That's my broader point.
Let's remember that Trump's call for the emails to be found is rhetorical. Before anyone starts calving, we should probably think back to the wider context, here. Clinton's, as obvious as she is lying, ongoing conviction that the law is for filler people.
Involving an adversarial nation and Putin, a notorious arm-twister, blackmailer, extortionist, and backstabber, in this issue just to provide stolen, sensitive (but as far as anyone has yet been able to prove, not illegally-deleted or top secret) information is no way to uphold the rule of U.S. law, let alone conduct foreign policy or domestic politics.
Which, again, ignores that nothing at all’s come of Trump’s throwaway line, except Clinton campaign hysterics. It ignores, also, Clinton’s blatant lies about whether secrets were involved, or whether emails were deleted illegally, but that’s a stale conversation by this point.
We’ve discussed the Clinton emails whitewash to death, already. So let’s whittle our focus down to what’s new here, which to me seems to be two-minutes’ hate for the president of the Russian Federation. Wow, do I feel differently about this than you. For one thing, doesn’t it strike you as odd that when confronted with indisputable evidence of her political villainy, Clinton’s wag-the-dog instincts are to escalate with the Russians to make it all go away? This is not a tangent, for me. Clinton and her State Department have made, when they weren’t too busy being the lead agency for Keystone XL as well as TPP/TISA and the like, a point of expanding NATO right up to the Russian border. It’s hard for me to imagine that you haven’t by now come across any of the background on the role Clinton's State played in the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government, but with all the hot, syrupy invective you can spout so easily about the Russian president, it does seem likely. Suffice it to say that in Ukraine, as with Syria, and Libya, and so on, any foreign policy on which Sec. Clinton and Sen. McCain whole-heartedly agree is an historic disaster and irredeemable mistake.
In effect, Trump has proposed an ad hoc alliance with Russia against a citizen of the U.S., in exchange for illegally obtained classified U.S. information, thus sanctioning their violation of our laws and undermining our ability to sanction Russia for its transgression.
No, he rang Clinton's bell, and it's still well rung.
Yes, I know many of the same things I've said about the risks of involving Putin in this issue can be said about the potential or actual effects of Hillary's actions,
Right. Because that's the point underneath all of this, but let's get back to the smoke and mirrors melodrama.
I want to see Hillary et al. face the music for real, but it must be in a transparent, complete, and constitutional way that leaves no doubt about the verdict's justness or the futility of vigilantism and crooked politics.
That ship already sailed. There'll be no accountability. Well, for Clinton. Warn your buddies of imminent danger overseas, or blow the whistle on cradle-to-grave warrantless mass surveillance or rampant war crimes and you'll rot forever, but we've gone from the Watergate Era, to the Clinton Era. Where it used to be that if the president did it, it was legal; now, if the next president does it, it's legal. That trend's not our friend.
And it must be done without empowering one of our main rivals in the geopolitical sphere.
Rivals? Remember the Cold War? No, not the cool one from Rambos parts two and three. No, I mean the one where any grave miscalculation at any time meant the destruction of the planet along with humankind. Yeah, that Cold War. It’s over, and good riddance. Russia’s not a rival. They’re a former enemy. Former, I should say, unless you’re Sec. Clinton, for whom escalation with the Russians is a reflex move. As seen here. Let me remind you: War with Russia is unthinkable. Not a go-to move in a future president.
Which is a nice point to have, except that it's at the end of a garden path leading away from Clinton's original intentional mishandling of state secrets, tucked behind her having panicked when this was widely disclosed, somewhere over by where she immediately began bald-faced lying about it to the public, the Congress, Justice and the FBI, where you can't quite see it because of how she — not knowing how to shred a commodity PC — turned all the prima facie evidence over to a private coterie of hackers and lawyers themselves lacking the security clearance they'd've required under anything like the rule of law or responsible statesmanship. But if you'd like to focus on boogeymen both foreign and domestic instead of facing that unpleasantness honestly, I feel you.
Which we’ve done, because it’s okay if you’re a Republican… Strike that, meant to say a jingoistic, right-wing, authoritarian, my-country-right-or-wrong, never-met-a-war-she-didn’t-like proud, close, personal friend of Henry Kissinger. Maybe Maj. Jason Brezler should've thought about that before he betrayed his country and the iron rule of law we care so much about.
Let's remember that Trump's call for the emails to be found is rhetorical. Before anyone starts calving, we should probably think back to the wider context, here. Clinton's, as obvious as she is lying, ongoing conviction that the law is for filler people.
Which, again, ignores that nothing at all’s come of Trump’s throwaway line, except Clinton campaign hysterics. It ignores, also, Clinton’s blatant lies about whether secrets were involved, or whether emails were deleted illegally, but that’s a stale conversation by this point.
We’ve discussed the Clinton emails whitewash to death, already. So let’s whittle our focus down to what’s new here, which to me seems to be two-minutes’ hate for the president of the Russian Federation. Wow, do I feel differently about this than you. For one thing, doesn’t it strike you as odd that when confronted with indisputable evidence of her political villainy, Clinton’s wag-the-dog instincts are to escalate with the Russians to make it all go away? This is not a tangent, for me. Clinton and her State Department have made, when they weren’t too busy being the lead agency for Keystone XL as well as TPP/TISA and the like, a point of expanding NATO right up to the Russian border. It’s hard for me to imagine that you haven’t by no...
Read Full