Kinja reply list

Read More
MockingbirdHillJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:00am
The congressional hearings were a Benghazi witch hunt, but this is the DOJ we are talking about here. This shit needs to end one way or another soon. If she is the nominee (and it sure looks that way), this can’t still be going on in July. She needs to win.
Reply
- Read More
  Racial quality, Yes, Socialism, NO!!!!MockingbirdHill
  3/03/16 11:02am
  This will not hurt Clinton one iota if she runs against Trump. They’ve already tossed the kitchen sink at her and it hasn’t done any good. Hillary is a winner.
  Reply
- Read More
  Jess the RipperMockingbirdHill
  3/03/16 11:04am
  Clinton winning the primary is looking like the worst thing that could happen. Her unfavorability ratings and this DOJ investigation make her a very weak candidate for POTUS.
  
  But then again, this is about what Hilary wants. And if she can’t have it she certainly won’t let anyone else from her party steal her thunder.
  Reply
Read More
ToadYouOnceToadYouTwiceJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:00am
Only would the Democratic party risk a Trump presidency by running a candidate that has so much baggage and is under an active investigation.

I await explanations from Hillary apologists.
Reply
- Read More
  PorxaderpToadYouOnceToadYouTwice
  3/03/16 11:01am
  The Democratic Party will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This shit is infuriating.
  Reply
- Read More
  Money$$$ToadYouOnceToadYouTwice
  3/03/16 11:08am
  “But the Republicans do it too”...”It’s because she is a woman” “Bernie can’t get anything done” “But she has experience”...did I leave any out?
  Reply
Read More
citizendefargeJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:06am
In other news, Gawker continues it’s quest to post as many “possibly damaging” news articles about Hillary as it can to provide some balance to anything that is even mildly supportive of Bernie. I’m starting to think you’re shills for the Republican party. As I’ve said before, I have nothing against Bernie, but your attacks on Hillary are not helping the Democrats win in November, and the stakes are really too high when you consider we could end up with President Angry Pumpkin.

Up next on Gawker: Bill Clinton shook some hands and forever soiled the election, stole votes from Bernie, and then he and Hillary killed the “Bernie baby” like they killed their lawyer.
Reply
- Read More
  Mangia M.citizendefarge
  3/03/16 11:11am
  Hey, I am a registered Dem filled with dread and doom about the November election and a GOP-er possibly winning. Unfortunately, the cats already out of the bag on this story. Republicans have even brought it up at their debates. Expect this to be a big issue if HRC gets the nom. They will also bring up Iraq, Libya, possibly Honduras, Clinton Foundation corruption, lost Wall Street transcripts, and probably much, much more. :(
  Reply
- Read More
  puncha yo bunscitizendefarge
  3/03/16 11:15am
  Gawker has actually been pretty clear in painting Hillary as the inevitable candidate over the last couple weeks.
  Reply
Read More
Low Information BoaterJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:02am
It's too bad there isn't another candidate, with strong head-to-head polling numbers against the presumptive GOP nom, vying for the Democratic nomination.
Reply
- Read More
  BrtStlndLow Information Boater
  3/03/16 11:07am
  *Elizabeth Warren disappears into a phone booth*
  Reply
- Read More
  Racial quality, Yes, Socialism, NO!!!!Low Information Boater
  3/03/16 11:08am
  Corey Booker!
  Reply
Read More
PucksrJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:12am
Not defending Hillary, but I want to make sure I understand the debate.

Hillary is claiming that they weren’t MARKED classified.
DOJ and others are arguing that the information was classified, but possibly not MARKED classified.

No one has actually found evidence that Hillary asked an aide to send her a file marked classified. She just asked for info that would normally be classified?

Does that sum it up?
Reply
- Read More
  ABD2021Pucksr
  3/03/16 11:30am
  Well there’s supposedly emails that contained classified material at the time they were sent/received, which is what the FBI/DOJ is supposedly trying to find out.
  Reply
- Read More
  PucksrABD2021
  3/03/16 11:40am
  Right, but I think the definitions are getting very muddled in reporting.
  
  Imagine Obama’s phone number is “classified”.
  If you were to receive the white house directory, it would say: CLASSIFIED-SECRET White House Phone Directory
  Obama could also TELL YOU his phone number. If Jordan Sargent happened to be recording the conversation for an article, he would not be permitted to reveal the president’s phone number.
  
  If you knowingly kept a copy of the email that said “CLASSIFIED-SECRET”, that would be one thing. If you happened to have a press recording of the President revealing his phone number, that would be another. In the world of INFOSEC, those are the same thing. In reality, they are very different.
  
  Of course Hillary’s emails contain classified information. She was the Secretary of State. Her text messages, phone calls, and private conversations also contain classified information. Her opinion on the Prime Minister of X is classified. However, I don’t think most people are thinking of that when they think of “classified information”. They are thinking of “troop locations”. Her email server may have had both, but the way that this is getting reported makes it difficult to determine.
  Reply
Read More
crucifictorious916Jordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:03am
Didn’t Dubya also have a private email server? And how many fucks were given? Didn’t that administration out the identity of a CIA agent on purpose because they were butthurt about an article or something? Why has this been going on so long?
Reply
- Read More
  Mangia M.crucifictorious916
  3/03/16 11:06am
  Apparently most of our politicians consider themselves above the law? But it is also a trend of our current national security state that our government overclassifies information to keep it secret and, also, is the biggest leaker of classified information. This email server thing is a little different though. I assume it was used to avoid FOIA requests, but was never intentionally leaked to anyone. I assume.
  Reply
- Read More
  accesscodecrucifictorious916
  3/03/16 11:17am
  It’s Clinton, so the standards are different. They are not applied equally to everyone. They are only discussing her email, even though it was a common practice. They are only discussing her speeches, even though Bernie did do fundraising that involved the banks in the past. They are only discussing her words, but ignoring Bernie’s very real vote.
  
  Why might that be, that that is happening? I mean, I don’t know. I have some ideas, but that’s what is going on. Only Clinton will be held responsible for these mostly imaginary doings. It started with conservatives making up things, but the liberals are carrying it all along quite nicely.
  Reply
Read More
dothedewJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:08am
No information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

This response is part of the problem here. Setting aside the over-classification of documents, if documents can be made classified at a later date then the fact that they were unclassified at the time they were sent/received is meaningless. This seems like the very reason emails are meant to be sent and received from government servers only. So that if later they are classified, the government has knowledge of everyone who received them. Am I missing something?
Reply
- Read More
  QuickWeevildothedew
  3/03/16 11:13am
  This is true but at the same time, the question is whether or not she did anything illegal. If they retroactively classify something then when she sent them it wasn’t illegal. Not illegal = no indictment. No indictment = President Hillary Clinton (barring a miracle from Sanders).
  Reply
- Read More
  first time talker long time listenerdothedew
  3/03/16 11:54am
  The only thing you’re missing is that there’s a bunch of misinformed fucking idiots out there who will believe anything negative about Hillary no matter how preposterous it is.
  
  I’ve got moronic friends and family saying she was fired from the Watergate investigation. They stole furniture from the WH. And don’t get me started on the Ben-fucking Goddamned-gazi bullshit from Fux News...
  Reply
Read More
curiousJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:04am
Doesn’t matter what the outcome is of the investigation. Trump will hammer her on this, Benghazi, the speeches, everything. His supporters will continue to feed on the offal he dishes out to them. She thinks she gets the hate now, just wait for the main event. Shit is gonna be baaaaaad.
Reply
- Read More
  QuickWeevilcurious
  3/03/16 11:14am
  There will be far more hate thrust upon Trump. It’s not even a comparison. I’m convinced that Hillary could kill a person in broad daylight and still be elected over Trump.
  Reply
- Read More
  dognamedkingQuickWeevil
  3/03/16 11:23am
  Maybe she and Trump could do us all a favor and shoot each other on 5th Avenue.
  Reply
Read More
Richard M TysonJordan Sargent
3/03/16 10:58am
Such a “nuisance”, these FBI and DOJ investigations into illegally transmitted classified info.
Reply
- Read More
  KIREEKRichard M Tyson
  3/03/16 11:00am
  Should have wiped the server with a cloth!
  Reply
- Read More
  Jess the RipperRichard M Tyson
  3/03/16 11:06am
  That’s the core of it. She broke the law and she got caught. Regardless of anything else, it was clearly illegal and she has the shit luck to be the one to get caught. Maybe this is what informs her 180 on the black community.
  Reply
Read More
ImmoralMinorityJordan Sargent
3/03/16 11:28am
It is remarkable to me how many people want to forgive this because they hate the Republicans and Trump so much. Benghazi may have been bullshit, but this is a real problem from not only a national security perspective, but from a corruption perspective as well. This private server allows her to play games with laws like FOIA, which protect us. This is a major problem for her.
Reply