Kinja reply list

Read More
Sam BiddleSam Biddle
3/10/15 3:47pm
As a lifelong (two elections) democratic voter this makes me not want to vote for her but Elizabeth Warren probably can't get elected so now what the hell do I do!!!!!!
Reply
- Read More
  burlivesleftnutSam Biddle
  3/10/15 3:50pm
  Join the rest of the well-reasoned progressive masses, I guess.
  Reply
- Read More
  cheerful_exgirlfriendSam Biddle
  3/10/15 3:50pm
  We move to an island and start our own society!
  
  (I already didn't love Hilary but with no other good choices I've been resigned to voting for her)
  Reply
Read More
CleverUsernameSam Biddle
3/10/15 3:47pm
So, are we going to pretend that this is a big deal while ignoring the estimated 22 Million email deleted by the Bush Administration, which was does explicitly to cover up wrongdoing?
Reply
- Read More
  MonaAamonsMonzanoCleverUsername
  3/10/15 3:49pm
  He's also purposely leaving out the fact that no laws or rules were broken whatsoever.
  
  It's gawker. Clicks > Journalistic Integrity
  Reply
- Read More
  redboxersClintonCleverUsername
  3/10/15 3:52pm
  teach Bush a lesson, don't vote for him when he runs for President. And while you're living in the past you should know that Y2K won't be a thing and John Wick is a really fun flick.
  Reply
Read More
Brian Williams dreams of cat gifsSam Biddle
3/10/15 4:03pm
As I mentioned on a previous post, my aunt who works for the State Department is required to carry a blackberry issued by her office for secure messaging.

Blackberrys support up to 10 separate email accounts on each device.
Reply
- Read More
  secretagentmanBrian Williams dreams of cat gifs
  3/10/15 4:17pm
  Exactly. I have 2.
  Reply
- Read More
  speteBrian Williams dreams of cat gifs
  3/10/15 4:29pm
  Same here with the VA. I am required to carry a Blackberry, I am required to encrypt and digitally sign all my emails, and I am required to be accountable for their contents. If I started sending VA information back and forth from my gmail account I'd be fired in a week.
  Reply
Read More
sui_generisSam Biddle
3/10/15 4:31pm
Ugh, I really expect more balanced coverage from Gawker on this topic. Every single piece on Clinton is written backwards from a conclusion already made, and you seem to be doing no research beyond cursory glances at NYPost headlines. The amount of ink you guys have spilled over this non-issue is embarrassing.

Here's an example of a neutral article on the speech, even from a partisan source:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/…

And here's an article explaining why the coverage has been full of shit:

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/clinto…
Reply
- Read More
  CornSoupsui_generis
  3/10/15 5:12pm
  Hitching this on to you as well since I'm in the greys. How does Sam totally going to gloss over this part of her press conference today? http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/10/hil…
  
  I want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding Iran. The president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. Their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off Iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access and insight into Iran's nuclear program.
  Now, reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective, and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits.
  But the recent letter from Republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of American leadership. And one has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?
  There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander- in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters' signatories.
  
  The fact that Gawker has not in any way covered this horrendous act by 47 republican senators possibly violating the Logan Act and then ignores Hillary's comments about it tells me that Gawker is turning into MSNBC. They too are obsessed with this email thing but saying nothing about the Logan Act being violated in an unprecedented way that puts our country in an incredibly vulnerable position...again. Why are you ignoring this Gawker? This is worth way more ink than the emails!
  Reply
- Read More
  Graby Saucesui_generis
  3/10/15 5:40pm
  
  Every single piece on Clinton is written backwards from a conclusion already made
  
  ^^^THIS.^^^
  
  I'm still waiting for some accusation of a cover up or something— ANYTHING— that would have been wholly discovered via email. What crime occurred that has no evidence outside of fucking email?? And if the only evidence is via email, no one would have even had the knowledge to ask about it via FOIA request, so it would have been undiscoverable anyway unless someone decided they were going to sit down and read 4 years worth of emails beginning to end.
  Reply
Read More
Sam BiddleSam Biddle
3/10/15 4:15pm
This is a great find:

Reply
- Read More
  MonaAamonsMonzanoSam Biddle
  3/10/15 4:25pm
  Sam, I think you need a hobby.
  Reply
- Read More
  ╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeSam Biddle
  3/10/15 4:31pm
  She should have just gotten an iPhone.
  Reply
Read More
OMG!PONIES!Sam Biddle
3/10/15 4:00pm
Hillary Clinton and her camp have been full of shit on this whole fiasco.

First of all, if she is all into simplicity and all that, then why would she then opt to have her own server in her home?

Secondly, and this has been irking me for days, 55,000 pages of email is bupkis. It's nothing. I say that as an attorney who's done his share of document review. A good rule of thumb for reviewing emails is about 1 per minute (and even that is somewhat slow). In an 8 hour day, a doc reviewer can go through 500 emails. So, hire 10 attorneys to do doc review. At 500 emails per day, they'll be done in under 2 weeks.

This is on par with when Al Gore got caught soliciting campaign donations from Chinese officials. It may not have been illegal but it sure as hell smelled bad.

Hillary fucked up. She used bad judgment. And then, when it became public, she continued to use bad judgment. If she had said, "Yeah. You're right. I did this. In hindsight, it may have been legal but that doesn't make it smart. I have turned over the server to the State Department so that they can archive all of the email," this would have gone away in a single news cycle. But instead, she and her camp trotted out the old "vast right wing conspiracy" defense and she finds herself in deeper shit than when she began.

This was just dumb. Just plain dumb.

~~Clinton/~~Warren/Castro 2016
Reply
- Read More
  PeteRROMG!PONIES!
  3/10/15 5:21pm
  Tellingly, she printed the 55k pages out and turned them over to State. Making the job of searching infinitely harder for them and any Congressional investigators.
  Reply
- Read More
  BigPoppaSmurfOMG!PONIES!
  3/11/15 7:58am
  Well it isn't like she got the SoS job and then hired an IT guy to set up an Exchange server in her study. The email server she used was already in existence because it was a private server that had already been set up for Bill Clinton.
  Reply
Read More
NefertittiesSam Biddle
3/10/15 3:51pm
On the one hand, this seems like another big bowl of nothing to get rid of her before she even gets going. On the other hand, how fucking hard is it to follow protocol, especially if you have aspirations for the presidency AND you're familiar with how shit works and tides turn in public office AND you know that they will be looking for anything to mess with you and your ambitions? Jeez Hil, much like your man, you're so smart AND yet so ridiculously dumb.
Reply
- Read More
  Milton Berle's Biracial SonNefertitties
  3/10/15 3:58pm
  This wasn't about protocol. She obviously did this to hide things.
  Reply
- Read More
  Graby SauceNefertitties
  3/10/15 4:03pm
  Why would she think that anyone would care about her email service, though? It would be different if her actions were illegal. I mean, every time any other candidate has had an email issue, the media has shrugged.
  
  Really, if Clinton circumscribed every legal activity she did based on how the GOP and Beltway press might choose to misconstrue and blow it out of proportion, she wouldn't be able to do anything. These are people who didn't see anything extraordinary about the government spending $100 Million over the course of 8 years to eventually discover a lie about a blow job. As long as the media got a good story that could move newspapers or news magazines— and now page clicks, they didn't care how big a nontroversy they were covering.
  Reply
Read More
A House In VirginiaSam Biddle
3/10/15 4:16pm
Everyone knows the standard isn't the same for Dems v GOP.
See: Iraq War coverup, for starters.
Reply
- Read More
  permanentrecordA House In Virginia
  3/10/15 5:06pm
  Such low fucking expectations you have in your elected officials.
  Reply
- Read More
  A House In Virginiapermanentrecord
  3/10/15 5:10pm
  MINE? how did they become MINE?
  I protested the Iraq War. I educate myself. I supported Obama.
  ...not only is your point mysterious, but random pottymouth?
  
  Your debate skills are being wasted on the Internet.
  Reply
Read More
Orlandu7Sam Biddle
3/10/15 4:05pm
From the WaPo this morning, for Sam:

"For over two decades now, we've seen a recurring pattern. Some accusation about Bill or Hillary Clinton emerges, and the news media practically explode with energy. Though the facts are murky at first, the blanket coverage is justified on the grounds that the story "fits into a narrative" about the Clintons and scandals — in other words, it isn't necessarily because the story justifies the coverage on its own terms, but because of stories that have been written before. Then there are lengthy investigations and explorations, and in the end, it turns out the Clintons did little if anything wrong, or at the very least the accusations were wildly overblown. That final accounting is given at best a cursory mention, despite all the breathless coverage that came before it."
Reply
- Read More
  Graby SauceOrlandu7
  3/10/15 4:23pm
  Indeed. I keep hearing that "it fits a pattern," but for the life of me I can't remember what the Clintons have actually *done* versus what the press and GOP were hyperventilating about.
  
  Whitewater = Nothing
  Benghazi = Nothing
  Vince Foster = Nothing
  Philandering = Something, but nothing to do with Hillary, and it's unclear how having a piece (or several pieces) on the side means you can't do your job
  
  I keep hearing that she's "secretive," but I can't think of a situation in which she has hidden information that would reasonably be available to the media or others. What I remember is media or GOP "JUST ASKING QUESTIONS" where there is no evidence of anything being untoward, and media or GOP failing to "just ask questions" of any other candidate OR completely ignore when other candidates have done blatantly secretive actions. Any time Romney can destroy his and his staff's hard drives and delete all their emails from the servers and run for President with barely any questions asked lets you know that this email flap is more a function of Clinton Derangement Syndrome than anything else.
  Reply
- Read More
  MonaAamonsMonzanoGraby Sauce
  3/10/15 4:27pm
  WHY CAN'T I STAR THIS MORE THAN ONCE.
  
  I'm grey anyway, so my stars count for horseshit, but I completely agree. I truly don't understand when the Clintons have proven to be lying crooks or whatever we're calling them now - Yes, Bill cheated and is therefore a bit scummy IMO, but it has nothing to do with his damn job. And that's the only fucking scandal that is even legit.
  Reply
Read More
Bull MooseSam Biddle
3/10/15 3:48pm

Clinton also confirmed the existence of a personal email server inside her New York home, though she assured reporters that it was protected by the Secret Service—so we know hackers didn't walk inside her house and steal the server—and promised that there were absolutely no security breaches.

Oh, well, then that's that then. Nothing to see here.
Reply