January 26, 2016 at 1:41 am #17528
Political analyst Dick Morris is convinced she will be indicted.
http://nws.mx/1IOZpaxJanuary 26, 2016 at 2:17 am #17532skepticalParticipant
Brian: I personally viewed the emails and yup, Dick Morris has all his ducks lined in a row for the first time in his life.January 26, 2016 at 7:12 am #17536duxruleParticipant
Tom Delay is also claiming that the FBI is on their way after Hillary. How is it that these convicted felons have such great inside information?January 26, 2016 at 9:09 am #17537edselehrParticipant
Hey Dork (not just Radiodork, because it clearly goes much further):
1) Why are you reading NewsMax?
2) Why are you reading any article about anything Dick Morris has to say?
3) Why are you just now catching up on “news” from August of last year?
4) Why did you think any of this warranted a thread on PDXRadio?
Think hard about your response…take your time…January 26, 2016 at 9:46 am #17538LurkingGrendelParticipant
Of course Dork started this thread. SMH. LOL.
I concur, Ed. I advised him to drop the “radio” on a couple of other occasions as the apparent breadth of his ignorance and credulity is boundless. Truth n’ labeling and what not, etc. It seems only fair.
And yet, I wouldn’t have thought anyone could be willfully stupid enough to believe the factually unsupportable fever dreams of the (literally) felonious far right. I mean, never mind what’s happening in the fact based world, by all means let’s all listen to the time and again disgraced and discredited Dick Morris via the same “news” site that propagates all manner of falsehoods, hyperbole, and noxious opinion oriented “journalism”.
As there’s about a 0.0% chance of Dork accepting that thrown gauntlet, please allow me to take thine gauge and take a speculative stab at it.
1. Because I’m simply not very smart and am intellectually incurious. My high school transcripts bear this out. Give a guy a break?
2. I enjoy seeking out opinions, any opinions really, that support whatever ideologically derived position I tend to already hold. And like all such opinions, they’re generally impermeable to reason or contrary factual data. Why, I might have to first lean to spell and then utilize objective reasoning skills! Such ways lead to madness, say I.
3. See also, #1. That, and this “news” was no doubt passed along to me via e-mail from a like-minded acquaintance who’s equally unaware of how foolish it is.
4. It’s a mystery. Thank goodness Mulder & Scully are back. Mayhap the truth is out there.
In candor, I’m not totally convinced this (Dork) is a real person. I wouldn’t have thought a complete caricature of a know nothing had the ability to actually come to life in this fashion, like a demented snowman crowned with a battered top hat. Maybe it’s an elaborate hoax?January 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm #17547
ROFL!January 27, 2016 at 5:22 pm #17609
I still can’t understand why Hillary had a server in her house. What the hell is she doing with a server in her house???
One thing we do know about Hillary, she is not trustworthy.January 27, 2016 at 6:03 pm #17610
Lots of people run their own servers. I had them running from the mid 90’s, through mid 00’s. Had a full set of services running right out of my house on a nice DSL. FTP, WEB, MAIL, SSH, etc… Was pretty sweet. I have a number of friends who did, and some of whom, continue to do the same. It’s not a big deal.
My number one reason for doing that was control over the e-mail, and to consolidate a few accounts into one central place that I could easily archive. I’ve actually got nearly all of my e-mail from the dawn of e-mail itself. Made setup easy too.
You will find quite a number of working professionals of various kinds, and government people, politicians, creatives, attorneys, etc… are all working professionals, will run their own IT, or have it contracted and located somewhere they consider stable, or cost effective. I have setup a few of these for various professionals over the years. Again, it’s no big deal.
Heck, you can get a home office tax benefit. The area consumed by the server, office, etc… can be itemized into a nice deduction. That’s why the pros often consider doing it.
In my case, I changed roles, went self-employed for a while, and had a variety of personal things going on. That’s a lot of e-mail from a lot of sources. Keeping the personal stuff “in house” is quite common. Family e-mails are one use case here. One member sets it up, gets the domain, and the entire family uses it and trusts their “admin.”
Clinton falls under a whole bunch of these use cases.
Remember gop.org? That’s the server Rove ran for “private” communications during the Bush administration. Lots of discussion there, and we suspect government discussion that would best not be found, from their point of view of course, happened on that server. It was completely “destroyed” once some “issues” began to come to light.
Cheney? You bet your ass he’s got his own IT. He’s ultra smart, ultra sneaky, and ultra paranoid. Not only does he have it, but I’ll bet it’s damn good too. If I were him? Fuck yes. In a second.
I could go on.
I don’t have a problem with that. Lots of people do it, and they have their reasons.
What people are concerned about is disclosure. Clinton complied when asked. Until we actually do find out she’s not complied, end of story. Time to look at her disclosure and find whatever can be found, and you can also bet your ass that’s being done.
The thing about e-mail is it’s not just on one server. Of course, Clinton had hers. It’s often easy to centralize this kind of thing when someone has multiple roles. One Outlook client, one server, and then all the stuff routes through there, setup is easy, archive is easy, privacy is easy, encryption is easy, etc…
But, the thing to remember is those e-mail comms were exchanged with others. If Clinton references conversations that were not disclosed, or someone else references one, then we’ve got a case!
That hasn’t happened yet.
As for running it as Sec of State, yeah. That was not the best move, but it’s not like we haven’t ever had people use alternative comms when they are abusing their office. It’s also not like we haven’t had breeches all over the place too. There is a solid case for wanting to keep a very close eye on that kind of thing, particularly in that role. The law now says otherwise, but that was not always the case! It’s been OK in the past. Remember that.
And, in a lot of those cases, those alternative comms aren’t available to us either.
Clinton, again, did disclose when requested. Additionally, she disclosed EVERYTHING, above and beyond the request. She did this to prevent ongoing requests, negative press, and the whole mess from being an issue during her campaign.
So the people who really believe Clinton did something bad have what they need to understand whether she, in fact, did something bad.
So far, there just has not been a cache of “bad” in those e-mails, and so far, we’ve got what appears to be a breech of protocol and a poor judgement. Those aren’t pretty, but they aren’t high crimes either.
Where are you going with that?
I don’t trust Clinton myself. But, I also don’t see her involved in ANYTHING even remotely as ugly, or even that ugly at all, compared to a lot of other people I ALSO DON’T TRUST.
We, as citizens, aren’t supposed to trust that much. I was perfectly OK with requesting she disclose it all. And she did. End of story, unless that actually proves to be some smoking gun.
So far, no joy. So again, where are you going with that?January 27, 2016 at 6:12 pm #17611
And just saying here… which party has the lead by far on crimes while in office? Crimes within the party?
It’s not Democrats. Not by a mile. I’ve put the lists here before.
Hell, the GOP had Tom Delay handing out checks on the House Floor! Corrupt as fuck.
So where is your trust well placed exactly?
Me? I’m going with Bernie. He’s probably the most trustworthy one out there right now. No Joke.January 27, 2016 at 6:22 pm #17613paulwalkerParticipant
I tend to like Bernie too. But he won’t come close to beating Trump in a general. Not that I like that, but the reality is someone so far left will not beat someone who is so far right (atleast in this incarnation, lol).
It would be a Trump landslide, much like Nixon-McGovern in ’72. Again, not to my liking, but this is the political breakdown in our country today. Hell, with Donald vs. Bernie I would guess many would simply not vote!
So the dems need to get Hillary back to the top, or retain her at the top to have any chance at the Presidency.January 27, 2016 at 6:34 pm #17615
Missing, I’m probably leaning more toward Bernie, but to be honest I’m an equal opportunity hater. I hate all the candidates both republicans and democrats. None of them will ever live up to what they say, they’re feeding us all a bunch of bullshit.January 27, 2016 at 7:31 pm #17620
I believe wither Clinton or Sanders can beat Trump.
He’s got big numbers in his small pool. Once it opens up to the general, Trump will not have what it takes.
@RD, I’ll remember you hate em all and largely ignore that. Thanks.
I believe government can work. I do not find “they all suck” type arguments productive.January 27, 2016 at 8:27 pm #17623
Millennials love Sanders,And while I hope he wins, I think Hillary will ultimately prevail(unfortunately). I do like sanders views on trying to make public colleges and universities tuition free. If other countries have free education, why can’t the United States? It seems like student debt is a big reason why millenials can’t buy their first home is because of student debt.January 27, 2016 at 8:41 pm #17625
IMHO, public universities need to be funded for students like they once were.
Will those millenials vote?
That’s the big ass question.January 27, 2016 at 8:49 pm #17629paulwalkerParticipant
Yes, a “big ass” question, but I think there is a “big ass” answer. And that is no. Bernie, at 74, will not likely get the millenials out to vote in any great force, unlike Obama in ’08. That is why I repeat, the dems only hope is Clinton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.