Discussion
  • Read More
    Fred Garvin Male ProstituteSam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:51pm
    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PeteRRFred Garvin Male Prostitute
      1/08/16 12:53pm

      Bernie was a fool for doing that.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BusySeasonBluesFred Garvin Male Prostitute
      1/08/16 12:53pm

      lol, but Trump is the Clinton plant, amiright?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    hntergrenSam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:53pm

    It’s not the same. A personal email account and a private server are two very different things. A personal email account is far, far less secure than a private server.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BlipBloopDoobyhntergren
      1/08/16 12:54pm

      don’t science or logic me, bro.

      MEN’S RIGHTS!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      bbutle01hntergren
      1/08/16 12:57pm

      Exactly, what she did was perfectly excusable.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    daflehrer1Sam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:49pm

    I was surprised to learn how many Senators and Representatives have used personal email about government business. Less so when I learned that their email is better than yours or mine.

    As long as we’re discussing documented facts, here are some more:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/…

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Silencio!daflehrer1
      1/08/16 1:17pm

      I am not a fan of this faux scandal, but using personal email for government business is probably not against the law, using it to transmit classified information is. Your average Congressman isn’t going have access to a heap of classified data.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      sui_generisdaflehrer1
      1/08/16 1:18pm

      Even though yours should be the top comment, as it deals factually and comprehensively with every single one of the ridiculous implications the willfully-uninformed folks are making about this situation, I’m not surprised it isn’t.

      Because this isn’t about facts. It’s about a witch hunt.

      Otherwise, people would be pointing out how not only did Clinton not violate any laws, but she also kept her emails on a private server which turned out to be more secure, in the end, than the State Dept ones.

      (ETA: more, excerpted from your link)

      http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/…

      FACT: Clinton’s Use Of A Personal Email Account Was Legal And Did Not Violate State Department Policy

      The National Law Journal: Clinton “Obeyed The Law.” In a March 9 article on Clinton emails, The National Law Journal explained that according to legal experts, Clinton “technically obeyed the law” with her use of email. The Journal explained:

      “There’s not any blanket prohibition on any federal employee from using a personal email account to conduct government business,” said Potomac Law Group partner Neil Koslowe, a former Justice Department special litigation counsel who has worked on cases involving the Federal Records Act.

      If it turns out that Clinton destroyed documents or mishandled classified information, that would be another story — such violations can be criminal. However, the State Department has said there are “no indications” that Clinton improperly used her email for classified information.

      The New York Times on March 2 reported that Clinton relied on her personal email account exclusively when she ran the State Department between 2009 and 2013, thwarting government record-keeping procedures.

      National Archives and Records Administration regulations require emails to be “preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system,” but when Clinton was in government there was no specified deadline for turning them over.

      In 2013, David Ferriero, who heads the archives, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the agency “discourages the use of private email accounts to conduct federal business, but understands that there are situations where such use does occur.”

      Following that hearing, according to a statement from the archives, Congress amended the Federal Records Act and the Presidential Records Act in November 2014 — 21 months after Clinton left government — to “prohibit the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they copy or forward any such emails into their government account within 20 days.” [The National Law Journal, 3/9/15]

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ARP2Sam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:44pm

    Is there any information on how good her personal email setup was? I can, sort-of, barely, maybe wrap my head around this if she had a professional grade set up, with a VPN connection, encryption, etc. and is scolding someone for using yahoo mail.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Mike_is_rightARP2
      1/08/16 12:48pm

      It was designed and built by the IT director of her 2008 campaign I believe, so it was professionally done, but at the same time it most likely wasn’t a Federal Government Secured level system.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      GrilledCheeseonSourdoughARP2
      1/08/16 12:49pm

      Quit creating a truth that helps her story. It’s bullshit.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Dashiell HammletSam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:45pm

    I know this is an “important” story though the amount of fucks anyone outside of the Beltway press gives is anybody’s guess.

    But she’s the head of the state department. Of course she uses her private email. Of course she selects which emails the public sees and doesn’t see.

    Would we have these same stories if her name were Madeleine Albright? Or Condoleezza Rice?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      WaltDisneyDashiell Hammlet
      1/08/16 12:48pm

      You’re missing the point here.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CleganeBowlConfirmedDashiell Hammlet
      1/08/16 12:49pm

      No, because Madeleine Albright didn’t use e-mail, and Rice rarely used it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KingOfKongSam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:45pm

    Burying the lede - how did Hillary send an email on Monday 2/28/11 that her subordinate replied to on Sunday 2/27/11, to which Hillary responded five minutes later on Sunday? WITCHCRAFT!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      puncha yo bunsKingOfKong
      1/08/16 12:53pm

      how did Hillary send an email on Monday 2/28/11 that her subordinate replied to on Sunday 2/27/11, to which Hillary responded five minutes later on Sunday?

      Benghazi.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      OMG!PONIES!KingOfKong
      1/08/16 12:56pm

      Time zones? Or maybe magnets.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    fancycheeseSam Biddle
    1/08/16 2:24pm

    This is the last click-bait bullshit Gawker article about HRC that I’m going to indulge, so help me god. Just came here to share that while Sam and others speculate a judgmental tone in the word “surprised” (“GOTCHA HILL, U BITCH!!1!!”), Vox just published a helpful analysis of Hillary’s plan on autism. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/8/10733…

    You know what would be great? If Gawker’s writers took some time and mental energy to compare actual plans from Hillary and Bernie on issues that matter to progressives. That kind of writing paired with Gawker’s commenter base would be useful. This is not useful.

    Honestly I feel like Gawker is becoming the Fox News of progressives and it sucks. I used to like this site.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.fancycheese
      1/08/16 3:39pm

      That she’s (sort of) saying she’ll be on the right side of history on the matter now isn’t that far off from how she’s treated so many other issues. As even that piece cites, in 2007 she was far behind the curve.

      “Today, one of the most urgent - and least understood - challenges facing our children is this rising tide of autism.”

      “In the Senate, I helped develop and co-sponsored the Combating Autism Act of 2006[.]”

      “And as President, I will build on my work with a strong commitment to fighting autism.”

      Gross.

      It’s just gay marriage and the war in Iraq and Keystone all over again.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RL DookiefuckYou might be wrong.
      1/08/16 8:17pm

      Yes a plan to address autism in children is definitely just like the war in Iraq, excellent point.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Tabby GevinsonSam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:46pm

    The problem for Hillary is that even if what she did was not technically illegal at the time it doesn’t pass the integrity smell test for many people.

    It still reinforces what many people already believe about her, namely that she is unscrupulous, conniving, and largely amoral.

    IMO Bernie was too gracious when he gave her a pass on it during the 1st Dem debate.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      George PTabby Gevinson
      1/08/16 1:30pm

      But none of the other candidates are, right? Only Hillary. I don’t like it but i feel like times are desperate enough that I can’t complain that the only lifeboat capable of maybe staying afloat for awhile has a broken running light. If any one of these wing nuts gets in, we will have a long bad slide politically, socially, economically, and diplomatically. Terrible way to cast your vote but I am convinced of this now. No echo chamber. No confirmation bias. Just read only what’s in quotes in any media outlet, right or left, and you will see they are looney tunes dangerous. Ben, the Donald, Ted, Rubio, Jeb. Name one that isn’t completely unqualified and batshit crazy on any number of issues.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Tabby GevinsonGeorge P
      1/08/16 1:37pm

      The way I see it is this:

      Imagine that America is a failing student and that the 2016 election is our exam. In order to pass the class we need to get a 60% or better on the exam.

      If we vote for the GOP we get a zero, but if we vote for Hillary we get 40%. Forty percent is much better than zero, but if we still ultimately fail what have we really accomplished?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BusySeasonBluesSam Biddle
    1/08/16 12:46pm

    Come on Sam you missed the most incriminating email of the bunch.
    Here’s Hilary ordering Sullivan to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand. Regardless of whether or not Sullivan complied, this demolishes Hillary’s claim to be ignorant of marking issues, as well as strongly suggests that the other thousand-plus instances where this did occur likely came under her direction.

    And friendly reminder to all the Hilary supporters out there. This is what she’s up against.

    18 USC 793: D) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
    (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
    (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CleganeBowlConfirmedBusySeasonBlues
      1/08/16 12:48pm

      Make no mistake, this will be dismissed as bullshit by Hillary supporters.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BusySeasonBluesCleganeBowlConfirmed
      1/08/16 12:50pm

      I know the laws are for the little people, but if she’s indicted. Wow what a shit show that will be.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    RoseLizenbergSam Biddle
    1/08/16 1:13pm

    Unless someone finds a Clinton email where she’s plotting to sell arms to Iran or govt secrets to China or some such shit, I just dont think people are going to care. Im not a Clinton loyalist by any means and am currently leaning towards voting for Sanders in the primary, but this email non-scandal is ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons to not like (or vote for) Hillary Clinton. Her use of a private email server is at the bottom of the list.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Aspie Barbies Each Sold SeparatelyRoseLizenberg
      1/08/16 1:23pm

      I agree that this got blown up mainly as a political witch hunt, but you can’t deny that the info coming out of it is pretty disappointing for Clinton. “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure” is a very, very big no-no for anyone versed in handling classified information. She could face real charges for this, if the FBI decides to move forward with its investigation. Whether or not people will care is pretty much irrelevant to the FBI, though some political finagling may get her off the hook. Here’s hoping for stability and level-headedness from both sides as this plays out or gets buried, either way.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      scalfinRoseLizenberg
      1/08/16 1:34pm

      At best this is “old woman who was unable to understand her company’s own policies and the internets in general wants to be in charge of a country.” That’s the most charitable interpretation.

      Reply
      <