When is the court date for Hillary?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...olice-and-anti-terror-chiefs-to-controls-team

Seattle is correct. That meme is incorrect. Only took 2 minutes to fact check it. The life lesson here is do not believe it just because it is in print on a picture on the internet. Also, fact checking memes before posting them would be a good idea instead of spreading false nonsense.

 

Husker
? Why do you think I am disputing any facts?
I am not> I am saying the optics of the facts sure don't favor any of them

edit to add in Bubba's " accidental meeting with Lowretta
and it sure ( how did Hillary put it?) strains credulity

 

What optics? The meme was misinformation, likely created to advance an agenda.

Are there other problems like you mention? Of course there are but misinformation doesn't add credibility to those initial problems. Just the opposite. The fact that 3 people jumped on board to say "yeah" compounds the credibility problem.

 

Yep, this is the kind of thing that makes conservatives look dumb.

 

Why? Spewing crap that is unconnected to reality looks fun. So fun, in fact, that I'm gonna give it a try. How's this:

This IS fun!!!

 

So, when is Hillary's Court Date?

Judicial Watch forced 725 emails to be released yesterday and there are 15,000 previously undisclosed, work related emails that a judge has ordered to be released. That will make the total 50% higher than originally estimated. Most of them were deleted, although there's no cover up, of course.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/

I'm guessing most Clinton Foundation contributors weren't as much concerned about doing good in the world as they were furthering some objective.

I think Hillary will get elected. This stuff is coming out too late to change your average American's mind, mostly because they aren't paying attention and the MSM will ignore it completely, but she's going to be dogged by her corruption for her whole Presidency. Very Nixonesque.

 

It doesn't help that they don't have a serious alternative.

 

What's amazing with everything she is guilty of that people just ignore or forgive her and most deny it actually happened. It's like she is seen with a knife with blood in her hand, face splattered with blood specs, walking away from the scene and the left will defend her by saying that we don't know for sure because nobody actually seen her commit the murder.

 

Yes, Hillary does a lot of questionable ****, to put it mildly. However, the **** she actually does is just a shade grayer (browner?) than the **** all politicians do. Favors to friends, donations from questionable sources, etc. She might do more of it than most, or she might just be sloppier than most in how she goes about doing it. Either way, she isn't breaking any new ground.

A big part of the problem is that the anti-Hillary crowd is in a non-stop tizzy about stuff that she didn't actually do. That makes it very hard for the average Joe to sort out what she did and what she didn't do. The boy has cried wolf one too many times.

If Clinton really was a serial murderer, or if she really was in bed with terrorists, or if any number of other things that have been alleged were really true, she wouldn't be leading the election. But nobody with half a brain believes that she has done those things. She's just a normal, crooked politician.

Also, Hillary wouldn't be leading the election if the Republicans had done a half-way decent job of choosing a candidate. I'm not supporting Clinton because I like her. I'm supporting her because I dislike her less than I dislike Trump. Multiply me by several million, and you have your reason why a crooked sleazebag is winning the race.

 

What's equally is amazing as that some attribute much more to her than the evidence actually shows. Using your analogy, HRC could simply be living in the neighborhood of said murder and many would go to great lengths to pin it on her through crazy conspiracy theories. She deserves to be critiqued for her email usage and others but the hate by some take the critiques to unfathomable levels to the point that typical behavior is assumed to be nefarious. An example, HRC is the only person in the world that is expected to have never deleted a single email or else it was clearly an attempt to hide something.

She can't wear clothes to hide her obesity rather it's assumed she's hiding a health problem. HRC and Bill have their own death squad.

 

I believe the average Hillary voting, yellow dog democrat, would vote for her even if it meant she had to run the country from prison.

Americans don't care about ethics anymore or else we wouldn't have Hillary and Trump. It's sad really, but that's where we are.

 

I am not voting for either. I think Hillary is more corrupt than the average politician. I do not think she is responsible for many of the crazy conspiracies attributed to her. She is probably on par with Grant and Harding which means she is too corrupt (or at least too sloppy about it) to be president. Trump is too much of a lunatic and doofus to be president.

I think NJ's excellent above statement is accurate. I think it applies both candidates actually. It applies to Hillary's crookedness and Trump's buffoonery.

The bad, disqualifying stuff that Hillary does gets buried underneath the BS conspiracies. If there is a smoking gun, you'll never find because you have to sift through all the false murder weapons planted around it. When people cannot tell which stuff is true and know some is false, all the allegations lose creditability and start being ignored (even when they really should not be). Amazingly, the people that hate her the most bury the evidence against her with BS. I have no doubt a Hillary presidency ends in an embarrasing, easily avoidable scandal similar to Nixon's.

Same goes for Trump. The bad, disqualifying stuff he says gets burried under stuff he said that was not a big deal or stuff the media implies he said but did not actually say. The media does not make a big deal out of the birther conspiracy or cruz's dad conspiracy, but goes all in on Trump not improperly responding to being attacked by a "gold star" family that politicized their own son's death to attack Trump at a convention. When regular people see the media making a big deal out of something that was not a big deal, they ignore the stuff Trump says that really is a big deal and disqualifying as they assume the media is exaggerating. I am completely in the anti-Trump camp, but some of the washington post editorials make ridiculous claims about him that make me cringe. All I can think is "this nonsense editorial, destroying the author's credibility, is why everyone glosses over his real faults." Want to have some fun? Start reading through the washington post editorial headlines on Trump. They contradict each other on why he is bad from one to the next. After you see all the headlines, you stop trying to discern the real reason he is bad and just assume the authors are bias and full of s***.

^ The above describes the regular joes. Clean makes a good point on the partisans. The partisans do not care about ethics or even their own values (assuming they had some) anymore.

 

HRC had the Democratic nomination wrapped up before the process started. Why else were their only 3 candidates? Nobody but an outsider and a nobody were willing to stand up to both HRC and the headwind of replacing a Dem POTUS with a voting population that wanted change.

Kasich would have walked into the Whitehouse. He would have easily taken the Independent vote and likely some of the Dem's who are distrustful of HRC. Alas, the Republican primary voters decided they preferred a brash clown rather than someone with a proven record of accomplishments in Ohio and D.C.

Potentially sending in a vote for HRC is frustrating if only to save the POTUS office from an egomaniac. I'm hoping that Washington State is clearly in the HRC camp that I can vote my displeasure in the process by going 3rd party.

 

This is largely true ... what is also true is that states with open primaries and solidly conservative had an enormous increase in GOP voter turnout (Trump credited) with a more/less commensurate decrease in the democrat primary. So ... what does that say?

This is why I would support dispatching the primaries all together. Put everyone on the ballot and start runoff elections, (2 or max of 3 elections) resulting the the last two candidates by June ... then our traditional process from there. If that results in two liberals ... well ... so be it.

I'm also tired of party driving the ballot.

 

I could get on board with abolishing the primary system. As the DNC showed, the process can be easily manipulated. The Superdelegate seems to be the most egregious example of the Primaries being a farce. The R's tried unsuccessfully to stop the Trump train.

 

It's beyond belief that there are some here that downplay Hilary's corruption. "They all do it it" or "she's just somewhat corrupt" or "that she gets blamed for stuff that's not true." That was the point of my last post. You are giving the benefit of doubt to the most corrupt person that any of us have ever known. Evidence is strong for 35 years now of pretty much everything she does. Everything is just a coincidence? I don't have time to mention all of her criminal acts or she has so many I've probably forgot half of them. You keep trying to compare Trump as corrupt and his Trump university is being looked into. That's not even a criminal case but civil. Even that is a reach. So name all the corrupt by trump that is illegal?

 

You're not listening if you think anyone is downplaying HRC's corruption. The real problem from my perspective is the exaggerations that are fed by agenda driven misinformation. She should be judged on facts, not conspiracies.

 

I have been surprised by some liberal media actually reporting on and editorializing on the pay for play angle. That won't help Hill.


Husker
Glad to see you took my suggestion and contributed to HornFans. I know it is appreciated.

 

I needed to stop the influx of Trump ads.

 

Whoa...Mike Pence still uses AOL?

One has to wonder how rampant government official use of private email accounts to conduct official business actually is? Given the age of many of these officials, they likely aren't experts on security thus don't understand how important it is.

 

White guy, white hair. Yep, he's smack in the middle of AOL's target demographic.

 

This is a screw-up for him, and legislatures and Congress need to take it more seriously by making it against the law. It should at least be a mid-level misdemeanor, and if it's done in the course of covering up some kind of misconduct, it should be a felony.

And I'll go back to what I said during HRC's debacle. The e-mails a government employee sends or receives while in the course and scope of his employment do not belong to him. They belong to the taxpayer. That means that they should be subject to the security systems imposed by the taxpayer and that they should be accessible to the taxpayer upon request without having to rely on the employee's honesty in knowing whether or not all the e-mails requested have actually been produced. Both should make the use of a private account inappropriate.

No, it's not as bad as using a private server in your home, and it's not as bad as sending classified e-mails on the server. However, it's still bad, and people should be pissed off at Pence. Should anything happen to him? It depends on what Indiana law was on the issue. I honestly don't know.

 

I think Pence's communication person said it wasn't against the law and I believe him. The laws simply haven't caught up with modern day technology use ethics.

 

Despite the advances over the last thirty-years, the fact that no one in the IT industry seems to be able to create a secure system with reasonable functionality indicates the industry itself remains in an infantile stage of development.

 

Nah...it's simply technology is moving too fast. Mainframes to Client-Server to the Cloud have all been sizable leaps. I have this discussion internally all the time with each new application that we implement. The bar for security is consistently raised each time. Only if technology stops evolving would we be able to finally stop the security improvements. Fortunately for us all, that's a ways away.

 

Yet email has been around for 20+ years and no one can secure it properly.

 

Can't secure for "stupid" user error. >99% of email hacks are password hacks. Given Pence's personal email hack, I'd wager his password was hacked.

 

Sounds like an easy fix. I wonder why systems allow such weak passwords.

 

Because the support costs and user dissatisfaction would be through the roof. Most systems have significant functionality in determining password configurations. It's the organization decisions that favor usability over security that leave themselves more vulnerable to hacking.

 

Despite the advances over the last thirty-years, the fact that no one in the IT industry seems to be able to create a secure system with reasonable functionality indicates the industry itself remains in an infantile stage of development.