[Premium Post] The link below provides the shameful details of a DNC staffer making fun of a black woman's name. I personally see nothing wrong with the name LaQueenia. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
You know, I hadn't thought about this before but its true. If DWS needs to resign for not "securing the DNC Servers", shouldn't Hillary also step aside for her "failure to secure Clinton servers"? Especially since it had Special Access Program and Top Secret information on it? Oh I forgot. Special rules apply for the Clintons. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">DNC leak gives Trump campaign opening to tie it all back to potential vulnerability of Clinton's personal servers <a href="https://t.co/i9QPh4MCtF">pic.twitter.com/i9QPh4MCtF</a></p>— Nick Timiraos (@NickTimiraos) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickTimiraos/status/757377219781984256">July 25, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Manafort's "observation" didn't make sense. DWS didn't have to resign for not securing the servers. She had to resign because she was in charge and therefore responsible for the content of those emails. It was what was in them and the fact that the DNC wasn't impartial like they were supposed to be that is the reason she had step down.
Oh that's the "stated reason" But we all know the truth don't we. They knew the content of the emails. They knew they weren't impartial. They knew this because they ARE THE DNC. She's resigned cause she/they got caught. If she had done a better job of ensuring security...they wouldn't have been caught. And she would still be in a job.
It's more than the stated reason. If the DNC members had actually remained impartial, and their emails were hacked, she wouldn't have had to resign. She was the leader and was responsible for what those under her did. She had to resign because they broke the rules. The security breach just allowed folks to know about it. But like I said they could have had the exact same breach and she wouldn't have been in trouble had they actually followed the rules. So again it isn't the breach but actually breaking the rules that makes her have to step down.
You make a good point. Kudos. I still believe though that at least part of the reason she was let go (and in other scenarios that weren't political...she would be let go) is she didn't ensure the security by hiring competent communication security specialists. Which is far less of a problem than Hillary had.
If this had been a Republican staffer, it would be on the front page of CNN.com. Shameful racism in the democratic party.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Asked directly on "60 Minutes Overtime" whether a DNC "effort to favor one candidate" over another would be improper, HRC would not answer.</p>— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) <a href="https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/757381646731579392">July 25, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mishandling classified information is an extremely vague term. To be fair to the original comment, intent is the starting factor on which direction to go when one mishandles classified information. Its criminal to willfully disclose CI to a party who is not privy to that information...that is the law. If one is negligent, then they could possibly be charged, depending on the damages. At this point, its more about whether they should be allowed to continue to have a clearance or not. In Hillarys case, there is no ifs, and or buts, her clearance should be revoked. I have not seen any evidence to suggest she should be prosecuted...but thats not to say there isn't any. Many politicians in Congress have security clearances. There is no law that states a POTUS requires a clearance of course, but its hard to do your job when one can not get intelligence briefings. This is a case where corruption is exposed in the DNC. The DNC is bought and paid for by the banks, so they can not run Bernie. They have no other candidates who is strong enough to win the general election, so they choose to double down on Hillary when they should have sat her down. Who wins out is going to be interesting. Hillary was a lock to win, but the turds keep floating to the surface. The American people are forgiving but what they dont like is being continually lied to. All Trump has to do now is change his rhetoric a bit and he will stomp Hillary.. If Hillary wins, she has to bat 1.00 to win the next election...provided the Republicans do not put up more fools.
If it's true that the guy was a Syrian refugee then the ban has to happen. No excuse now. Hillary wants to import 500 percent increase in Syrian refugee. This is suicide.
http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...influence-election-american-president/130163/ Putin helping Trump.
The DNC and Hillary blaming Russia with no real proof makes it literally as credible as Hillary blaming Benghazi on a video
I loathe both candidates, but I never believed that such a thing as "independent sources" existed in today's journalism, and I sure as hell don't believe it now.
Hillary was the first one to release a statement blaming Russia in any case whether it was Russia or not.. Im very much looking forward to this particular "Russian" Leak/release Clinton Foundation Said to Be Breached by Russian Hackers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/clinton-foundation-said-to-be-breached-by-russian-hackers Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said that Wikileaks have obtained information that, when released soon, should guarantee a Hillary Clinton indictment. Here is the NEW Interim DNC chair saying that as more is released.. and oh there WILL be more released she is 'sure' there will be more people than just DWS that will have to resign <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bQr7cQK7140" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This is true, up until it becomes gross negligence. Comey laid out the case that it was, even using the term 'extremely careless', which is listed as a description of gross negligence in the statute. To be guilty of gross negligence, one does not have to have intent, just be grossly negligent. This is also laid out in the statute. I think we are in general agreement then. The criminality ship, at least on the currently known evidence, as already sailed. The future ramifications of the things Hillary was found to have done remain to be seen, but it would seem that unless POTUS simply gets granted security clearance as something required of the position, then she cannot get have it...and this makes doing the job of POTUS extremely difficult, if not essentially impossible. How can you be CIC and NOT have access to all the information required of that position? Agree. More than a bit, but he seemed to have started that process even before he had the nomination locked up. The convention seemed to lay the groundwork for him being a viable mainstream candidate. Will see how it goes going forward. Sadly, not true. But she is going to have to play defensive, given all the attacks that are going to be thrown at her. But I'm not sure she can do that. Her standard tactic is essentially 'what, me?' followed by 'those evil Republicans won't leave me alone'. That has worn thin, I think, especially given Comey pointing out all her falsehoods. Trump is more the one who has to bat 1.00. He's coming even in the polls, but currently behind in potential electoral count. He needs to bat 1.00 in Florida for sure, and probably Ohio, although there are paths without that state. But there are, once again, a handful of states that are going to decide this, and Trump needs to win most of them.
