I'm looking forward to the **** show just for entertainment purposes. So far he's threatened the Speaker of the House, threatened trade wars with Mexico and China, talked about fist fighting people, conveniently forgot who David Duke was before the SEC primary, threatened to bar Muslims from entering the country, called Mexicans rapists, has flip flopped on virtually every position he's held for years, and now is suggesting there'll be riots if he's not the GOP nominee. LOL. You can't make this crap up. How does he top that epic list of garbage? I hope he doesn't p***y out now.
And don't forget he put down POWs, has an insanely immature feud going on with a Fox News reporter, made fun of disabled people, and thinks about dating his daughter. All from the mouth of Donaldo Mussolini.
So, does this mean they can pursue charges against Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as well? Is this all BS below? I'm not being sarcastic- I don't know what to think at this point: Colin Powell and top staffers for Condoleezza Rice received classified information through personal email accounts, according to a new report from State Department investigators. Hillary Clinton has received severe criticism -- particularly from Republicans and computer security experts -- for using her personal email account while serving as the nation's top diplomat under President Barack Obama. Thursday's revelation about the two secretaries of state under former President George W. Bush gave her supporters an opportunity to claim the Democratic presidential candidate was being singled out over the practice. The emails were discovered during a State Department review of the email practices of the past five secretaries of state. It found that Powell received two emails that were classified and that the "immediate staff" working for Rice received 10 emails that were classified. The information was deemed either "secret" or "confidential," according to the report. "Based on the department's responses and findings to date, additional potential classified material and/or highly sensitive information not intended for distribution may reside in the Department's unclassified paper and electronic archives associated with Secretaries Powell and Rice and their respective staff," a memo about the report said. In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators. Powell noted that point in a statement on Thursday. "The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't," Powell said. "If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share." "I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said. Clinton has argued that the messages from her email have since been deemed classified by the intelligence community as part of an "inter-agency dispute" between the intelligence community and the State Department over whether the information should have been classified.
I agree with you on your assessment of the GOP. Yes, it has racists, bigots, birthers, etc as part of its broader coalition. That's the deal the party made with the devil when it signed off on Nixon's Southern Strategy. Now the reckoning is coming. However, I'm inclined to believe that Trump is a political cancer not bound by party lines or affiliation. Today he's the GOP's worst nightmare, tomorrow he could become the nation's. Sure, Democrats are relishing right now at the landslide Trump would provide to Hillary in November, but that is only made possible by the party handing her the nomination on a silver platter, indulging her at every turn, and sabotaging a respectable candidate like Sanders on civil rights and vilifying his young supporters. While she panders to black voters to save her candidacy. Those are all valid criticism of Democrats as well. In such a climate, if the GOP is devoured wholly by it's populist xenophobic wing then the voters will be further robbed of choices in an already rigged two-party system.
I think it should be investigated and if they find that the information was classified at the time (note that I didn't say "marked classified"), they should prosecute. You simply cannot have people sending or receiving classified information via private email. It's irresponsible and it is day one type stuff. No one can say they didn't know better. The defense that "other people broke the law too" isn't really solid. It really makes people sound infantile if "Colon Powell did it too" is what you hear when pointing out gross irresponsibility and criminality.
I disagree with what you quoted of me. What is Hillary's vision that she's selling on her campaign? To continue the policies of President Obama? Is that really a vision that she can use to identify herself and her image in order to inspire people driving out to vote for her? She's not stupid enough to assume her constituency thinks Obama is a progressive president. Instead she's counting on those disappointed voters to roll over for her like they've done for Obama. If you're using that as an opening for my entire post, I wasn't the one who called her a Republican. What I characterize her politically is a left of center "New Democrat", an ideology that shifts away from supporting institutional support in things such as mental healthcare, welfare, and labor groups that, despite all of its warts and corruption, supported and propped up a mostly white middle/lower class which elected more politicians with mandates gave more back to the public. Now we have both sides openly sucking the teat of Wall Street and going knee deep in dramatic, potentially irreversible globalization that enthusiastically enables corporations to promote race to the bottom policies with every nation involved. Younger voters are totally affected by these New Democrat policies. She does have bona fides for a lot of democrat issues, but without the vigor or courage to promote them like Bernie Sanders. Maybe she thinks none of them are realistic so she'll pick and choose which to enforce. Unlike the snake charming mentality Cruz has with his voters ("I lied to everyone about supporting immigration reform because it was my master plan of destroying it. I just didn't reveal that genius to anyone else"). There's no window on what she'll do as a "pragmatic" cut. I have but I think she's too old and wizened to regress back to the ideological Hillary who tried to push through Clintoncare. I'd prefer not to vote for the same Hillary that went to the Senate. I feel a disdain for Democrat politicians keeping the country afloat while preserving a clearly flawed status quo where "everyone wins" with her patronizing the church of Wall Street and having enough to benefit her interests. Cumulative wealth is not the point, is it? I just don't know her price for selling out the American people or where her decision making will land when it comes to making tough cuts or raises. Will it be more shafting middle/lower class angry white people? Will it be revisiting Bubba's era where government became more numbers driven through policy (Welfare reform) and polling rather than creating venues to address problems at the source? Maybe I'm too optimistic to think a progressive president can ever be elected, but I'd rather choose Old Democrats than these Wall Street ****suckers
I know you're drawing a hardline because you're more conservative leaning, but this does not seem politically realistic at all. Like it or not, this is not a simple "she did xyz" case. a) it's far fetched to think the executive branch of the president SHE served under is going to prosecute her to the full extent of the law. b) words like 'gross irresponsibility' and 'criminality' really need hard evidence her actions led to some negative outcome. It would take a ton of political capital to make this a thing and I just don't believe the republicans have enough to sink the presumptive democratic presidential candidate. Along the petty lines, it's galling that the people attacking her so vociferously on this issue (congress) are actually exempted from the very situations that are getting her in trouble.
The fact that holding politicians accountable for committing crimes just like you would with anyone else is seen as taking a "hardline" is part of the problem. If it's not "politically realistic" to prosecute politicians for breaking the law, then the US has huge problems.
Sam, Rubio says he is hanging up the cleets (for now). http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...wont-run-for-re-election-or-governor-in-2018/
I don't think any single person in the country would say the US doesn't have huge problems. That's moot though. There are plenty enough examples of people committing crimes not being held accountable in the American justice system. Just look at OJ, the affluenza kid or numerous pro athletes. Really the only people held accountable for their actions/crimes in the last 20/30 years were poor people and/or minorities. Everything else gets pled down. My point is not whether that idea is right or wrong. My point is that it happens and this particular situation is no different. Slick Willie was not getting impeached for getting his d* sucked.
