No indictment, but how do Democrats deal with this:

[tk2kewl]

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

[sufrommich]

1. Give it up. It's over. nt

[tk2kewl]

10. So they ignore it? That's your answer?

Good luck with that

[Hortensis]

16. FBI's answer: "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Director Comey explicitly stated that they found

* No willful or intentional misconduct.
* No indications of disloyalty to the United States.
* No efforts to obstruct justice.

[tk2kewl]

22. He did say that, you are right. He also said what was posted in the OP

And the question is how do democrats address those statements

[LoverOfLiberty]

55. How about instead of concern trolling

you just let Hillary and her staff figure this out?

[Kentonio]

101. Because this is a political discussion site, not a cheerleading contest?

[LoverOfLiberty]

122. So, no answer

typical

[Kentonio]

125. I'm here to discuss politics and the impact different events have on the future chances of our party

The idea that we should just sit back and applaud while our betters go about solving the problems seems very strange to me.

[metroins]

188. The impact is, nothing.

The only thing that mattered today was no indictment.

The American public isn't going to read the report, the FBI cleared her if charges, nobody cares anymore.

It was going on 4 years ago and had to do with emails to her staff.

There will be no more impact from this.

[Kentonio]

250. Well, let's hope you're right.

Although I'd say the chances of the GOP letting this disappear are about zero.

[pangaia]

277. People should care

[lapucelle]

68. Maybe they should begin by asking why the director of the FBI feels entitled to publicly scold

a former secretary of state who did nothing criminal.

Has the FBI ever done anything like this before? I mean to a male candidate or male public figure?

[missingthebigdog]

77. Exactly!

[obamanut2012]

123. No, it was a bizarre presser -- very personal

And, Comey was Ken Starr's lead investigator.

[JTFrog]

126. Bingo. n/t

[Surya Gayatri]

132. A-friggin'-men! So spot on!

[Maru Kitteh]

174. agreed. nt

[AgadorSparticus]

192. +1,000!!!

[peace13]

258. He actually didn't say that she did nothing criminal..

...he said no prosecutor would take it though, due to a mix of reasons. There is a difference. I highly suggest that you listen to the whole press conference. It was very informative. Sad on all levels, but very informative.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. My recommendation?... Take the blue pill.

[zenabby]

231. So what is your proposal?

What do you think we/Hillary should do? Do you need any more information? It seems to be clear that she did this for convenience, but it turned out to not be such a great idea, politically and perhaps procedurally. She didn't break any laws, and let's admit it, it has been done before, even though general guidelines don't think that's a great idea. So, what do you think anyone should do? How is it ignoring when there was a whole FBI investigation by republican prosecutors around it and they came back with a verdict?

[silvershadow]

194. I wonder how well that will play with voters. I'm willing to give it my best effort,

but honestly...you know how voters are- especially Republicans and Reagan Democrats. The reaction just to the Clinton name evokes very visceral responses. I will likely have to pass on discussing politics with those types, just for sanity.

[pangaia]

276. If I speed unintentionally, I can still get a citation

[RBInMaine]

133. "She has long admitted it was an error, though no bad intentions. Now go investigate Colin Powell."

[Lord Magus]

164. Yes.

We don't need this concern-trolling.

[MFM008]

2. Splody head?

Only republicans care....
Oh and those other guys.

[tk2kewl]

11. I am not a Republican and I care about the judgement and honesty of all candidates

Do you think Democrats have no need to make a case for the votes of people like me?

[Hortensis]

33. A case was just made, again, and

seemingly to absolutely no effect. There's a clue there.

Ultimately, we all vote our aspirations, our consciences, our interests, and our malice according to our natures. You will either discover that the party has been trying to appeal to you all along or you won't.

[Hekate]

69. You've made your position plain just about every day. So has Hillary.

I think you and she are at a standoff -- and she has already won millions more primary votes than the guy whose flag you are still flying.

At this point I can't even say "sorry for your loss." SMH

[emulatorloo]

104. You are dissapointed the indictment fairy isn't real and you are concern trolling.

We've all read your posts.

[nolawarlock]

185. +++1

I love reading the posts on that other site (which I only reference because it is inexplicably allowed to be shared here constantly) by the allegedly "concerned" on this site. They sing a very different song over there. It's all a very interesting psychological tour into the use of passive aggressive communication.

[SharonClark]

139. You may be surprised but I would guess that most of us look for judgement and honesty

in the candidates we support. We just don't sound so self-righteous about it.

[Maru Kitteh]

178. It's quite amusing, the Jackass Delusionals and FOX noise crowd today

Splody-heads splodin' all ovah the place!

[metroins]

190. I've been enjoying it all day. Nt

[bravenak]

3. Really?

This is getting sad as hell

[tk2kewl]

12. What is getting sad?

[bravenak]

17. The desperation in people trying to somehow make this BAD for Hillary to be cleared.

[tk2kewl]

29. Do you have a comment on Comey's above statement or how democrats ought to address it?

Or is the best strategy to say its over, nothing to see here?

[NYC Liberal]

37. Yes, the best strategy is to say it's over, there's nothing to see.

Because it is and there isn't.

[Hortensis]

52. I have a reply: IT'S OVER! THE LYING, EVIL

SCHMUCKS LOST AGAIN!

Justice prevailed, and with it the Democratic Party.

Onward and upward to the White House, the Senate, a bunch of House seats, some governorships, and state legislatures. There's a lot of work to do!

[Maru Kitteh]

182. THIS! nt

[bravenak]

61. Comment? Yes.

And so ends another fake scandal.

[thucythucy]

153. How about:

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)

"Not even one of Ken Starr's lead investigators, who spent years of his life trying to destroy the Clintons, was able to find anything illegal, or even a hint of criminal motivation, in all the years since this has been raised as an issue. THAT should tell you something right there. Now let's talk about Donald Trump's connections to white supremacist groups, and his own racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, his love of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, his wanting to abolish the minimum wage, his willingness to discriminate on the basis of religion, his out and out threats of physical violence to those unwilling to be cowed by his bullying...etc. etc. etc."

[Her Sister]

208. You forgot his anti-union and anti-worker actions with his own employees!

Trump’s Vegas Hotel Spent Half A Million Dollars To Stop Maids From Unionizing
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-union-vegas-hotel_us_5776b0dee4b09b4c43c05424?c9i6yldi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2231351

[thucythucy]

269. Yes I did.

Thank you for bringing that up!

[WhiteTara]

240. You left out his Mafia and Cohen ties.

His mentor was Roy Cohen and he's been in bed with the mob for decades. In addition there allegations that he raped a child.

[thucythucy]

270. The sleeze is endless, isn't it?

Thank you for pointing all this out.

[jberryhill]

4. By developing policies that fit with the demands of the work and technology

At the end of the day, the reason why Clinton, and her predecessors, used ad-hoc systems for electronic communications is the lack of appropriate technology to provide department heads and other high-level officials with flexible and timely electronic communication facilities.

[tk2kewl]

18. Only thoughtful answer so far

Thanks

[lillypaddle]

49. I like your answer

and I believe it is true.

[brush]

202. Why have you been dragging this out all day?

Sad that there was no indictment recommendation?

Sure seems that way.

[lillypaddle]

241. WTF?

Read the response from JBerryhill and my response to him. No way does that indicate I support an indictment. I'm with HER.
And dragging it out all day? Kindly show me where and how I've done that. Put your reading glasses on, or are you just looking for a fight?

[brush]

242. Are you reposting this?

[nolabear]

54. EXACTLY. Use it as a lesson learned and a chance to upgrade everyone's policies.

We live in an insane world that believes that any mistake is evidence of overall incompetence and deception. It isn't. If only people bothered to think and ignore the fear mongers. But of course that's what the D wants, to foment fear.

[Chathamization]

89. A lot of the government systems/policies seem to be 15-20 years behind. It'd be great if we saw some

serious focus on the modernization of governmental bureaucracy; it affects an enormous amount of lives.

[Justice]

98. That really is the answer to all of this - spend time/$$ on fixing that, not investigating....

[stevenleser]

105. Yep, as I have been saying from the beginning about stuff like this.

It has been a maxim of IT leadership for decades that if you make it too difficult for people to do their job using 'approved' systems, they will go around you to do their jobs.

Secretaries of state have been going around the systems at State for decades because of this.

[treestar]

124. And government lag

They tend to be behind on tech. I recall a federal officer using a manual typewriter in the mid 1980s.

[underpants]

5. Were they classified at the time?

Also, so someone who's ISN'T indicted now is responsible for handling it?

[tk2kewl]

15. Comey said yes. Secret info was shared and compromised. How do democrats address this?

[DonViejo]

23. WHat's with this, "you Democrats" malarkey? Are you not a Democrat?

[tk2kewl]

34. Huh

[DonViejo]

50. You know what I'm talking about but, because you edited your

comment, you have been able to cover it up. Nice move.

[tk2kewl]

75. I edited nothing.

[Adrahil]

65. Where does it say info was compromised? NT

[Lord Magus]

165. We don't.

Because there's nothing to address.

[Whimsey]

235. He did not say this

He said the classified information was sent over a private server that was not government secured. There was no allegations classified e-mails were sent or that classified information was shared with anyone who would not have been allowed to receive it. The only issue would have been if someone had hacked in and obtained it. And no one did. And government computers and e-mails have been hacked and information has been disseminated. Think of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. They were heroes for doing it intentionally. Hillary is crucified for using a non-government server.

Realistically, government employees use their personal e-mail for government related work, and use there government e-mails for personal correspondence. And that includes our republican elected officials. How many of them could survive this standard of scrutiny?

[Demsrule86]

279. What people are missing here is that State was Hacked three times.

It seems Hillary Clinton's server was safer...not surprising considering they still use floppy disk at state. Like the rest of America, State is served badly by the GOP non-governing kind of government. the infrastructure has been ignored for years. In this case the email and internet part of state is obsolete and from what other SOS have said difficult to work with. Too many fun wars to fight for the GOP to 'waste' money on a modern internet service. I think most of Comey's speech was a hit job with no basis in fact. He could find no reason to indict, but He 'thinks' there" may be hacking even without any evidence...blah blah. He gives his little talk on a Monday after a holiday...a hit job really. I don't believe this will hurt Sec. Clinton as everyone know all about this during the primary. The GOP may very well overplay their hand. They go home without even dealing with Zika...but have oodles of time and money for endless hearings...bad optics. We have a choice, Trump or Clinton. I choose Clinton hands down. I am with her.

[MineralMan]

6. The email thing is over. Without any indictable offense,

there's simply no there, there. If everyone who was careless with classified information lost his or her job, DC would be a ghost town.

We need to just let this die down. There will be other things to fight off before long.

It's over, but you might get a different response at some other place you've posted this. I don't know.

[uponit7771]

7. Splodey heads are slpoding !!!!! We handle it by laughing at them really loud and often

[YouDig]

8. By talking about issues that people actually care about. The email fairy is dead.

[geek tragedy]

9. .

[tk2kewl]

13. So Comey statement is funny to you?

[geek tragedy]

14. concern trolling is funny to me

Clinton won, Hillary Haters need to get over it.

[tk2kewl]

30. She still needs to win the GE

to do that she will need to deal with Comey's comments posted above

[Dem2]

43. Ha ha

Bad day 4 the h8ters

[MineralMan]

47. Donald Trump. Deal with that.

We have Donald Trump to hold up as a reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. What more could we need, frankly?

Hillary will comment on the FBI's statement, no doubt. She has already said the private server was a mistake. She will say that again. Please listen to her comments. You'll find your answer there. In the meantime:

Donald Trump.

[Renew Deal]

51. Are you voting for her?

[KingFlorez]

59. All that matters is "no charges"

Most people are not going to focus on anything other than "no charges". Other than the fringe, everyone will tune out now.

[tk2kewl]

76. That assumes that her republican opponents don't continue to bring it up

Unlikely in my view

[KingFlorez]

84. Stop it

You lost the FBI primary too, so give it up.

[LuvLoogie]

127. Touch Tone Revolutionaries have no heart. They attack from behind

and demand your surrender when you've won.

[csziggy]

111. This will go into the long list of things the Republicans continue to bring up

That have been disproven or were totally made up. And except for conspiracy theorists it will be ignored.

[MineralMan]

137. Or others, even, might keep bringing it up, eh?

It's not just Republicans who are trying to defeat Hillary Clinton in November.

[Kentonio]

19. The head of the FBI just accused our nominee of being extremely careless with classified information

And also mentioned that her personal email could well have been hacked by foreign governments. If this makes you laugh, then I despair for the general.

[geek tragedy]

24. your CONCERN is greatly appreciated.

P.S. Hillary's still going to be the nominee

[Kentonio]

28. Why are you still fighting the primary?

[geek tragedy]

31. LMAO, nt

[Renew Deal]

48. lol

Oh, the irony

[Kentonio]

106. No, the irony is a bunch of people who kept insisting it was over

Are still acting as if half the forum is the enemy who must be insulted and mocked at every opportunity, despite most of us Sanders supporters now being behind Hillary's campaign. You're doing a great job of making us feel like we should have just walked away instead incidentally.

[geek tragedy]

143. people who post in a manner consistent with wanting Hillary Clinton to win

receive no ill treatment whatsoever.

people who beat the damn dead eGhazi horse raise questions about their bona fides in that regard.

[Kentonio]

249. You can shove your purity test quite frankly.

[geek tragedy]

260. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Kentonio]

261. You should share that with your friends who are going out of their way to mock and deride other Dems

[geek tragedy]

263. The mocking is directed at non-Democrats.

As a general rule, people who refuse to support the Democratic nominee's effort to keep Donald Trump out of the White House are not Democrats.

As an absolute rule with zero exceptions, those trying to ensure a Clinton loss in November are not only non-Democrats, they are functionally Republicans and are enemies, not allies.

[Kentonio]

264. You should go and read those Terms of Service again.

Do not imply that they are fake Democrats, fake progressives, conservatives, right-wingers, Republicans, or the like.

You should probably self-delete what you just said, as it clearly breaches that rule.

Not agreeing with everything Mrs Clinton says is not the same thing as trying to ensure she loses, its about holding her accountable so she campaigns in a way most likely to a) help the country and b) win. Giving her a free pass to do anything, and accusing anyone who brings it up of being part of a right wing smear campaign is exactly what allows successive generations of politicians of all sides to get away with so much.

You are using extremely divisive language and it's doing nothing other than annoy a lot of people who have supported this party for many years. Much as the primary might have fooled people into thinking otherwise, we are not your enemy, unless you're an enemy of progressive thinking (which obviously you are not). Isn't it about time we came together and stopped assuming that everyone who supported a different candidate must be your enemy?

[geek tragedy]

265. I am stating a general proposition not insulting any individual

Not everyone is on our side.

I have zero problems--zero-with people who supported Sanders in the primary and who recognize that Trump must be defeated, and by the largest margin possible.

[Kentonio]

266. In which case you're going to also have to accept that ideas of how that can be achieved may differ.

Hillary has a big trust problem with the public, some of it self-inflicted and some a result of GOP attack dogs. To restore that trust, she needs to be much more open with the public, and to me that also includes admitting culpability for the mistakes made in this case so we can genuinely put it behind us. The American people are generally ok with people who screw up, if they come out and admit it. All this obfuscating and crap about 'security reviews' and suchlike just make people trust her less though.

[geek tragedy]

267. Not sure I understand your point.

Clinton getting more popular and electoral votes is the only way that goal gets accomplished.

[Kentonio]

268. Exactly, and IMHO she will become considerably more popular by dealing with the trust issue.

[charlyvi]

39. And she will win

And they will still be harping on this as she is inaugurated.

[KingFlorez]

36. Let it go, dear

[Dem2]

38. .

[samsingh]

42. give it a rest. cheney and company lied us into war and still won two elections.

Hillary did what other SOSs did.

cheney revealed plame cia identity and didn't suffer in any way or even bother to answer questions about it.

[Native]

95. Hear, hear!

[arcane1]

109. Yep, and the "and company" included Democrats n/t

[lapucelle]

186. Comey's personal email WAS hacked last summer.

Comey's speculation was stunningly unprofessional.

[KingFlorez]

20. Stop

[DavidDvorkin]

21. The Indictment Fairy has flown away.

[MaggieD]

25. OMG - give it a rest

Or just find a better place to post your Hillary hate.

[writes3000]

26. Let's Be Honest. You have an agenda which makes this post's objectivity slim to none.

There are MUCH bigger issues for the future of America than this. We win by focusing on those. But you know that already.

[MaggieD]

58. Exactly

There will be lots of Hillary hater crap today.

[missingthebigdog]

86. It is not only the OP that has an agenda

Comey has an agenda as well.

The evidence didn't support an indictment, so he decided to take it upon himself to see if he could have her tried in the Court of public opinion.

It is shameful and petty. This is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. Can you imagine what it would be like if law enforcement could just make a pitch to the public every time they decide they want to take someone down but there isn't enough evidence? We can't indict her, but maybe, if we try hard enough, a mob will burn her at the stake. SMH

Comey used "transparency" as a crutch to vilify his target. He provided only the information he saw fit to provide, and didn't bother to make transparent whether similar issues were found with previous Secretaries of State.

[Hekate]

27. Just. Stop.

[Dem2]

32. Lmfao

You're exposed.



And finally

[samsingh]

35. She won't be careless in the future. Give it up. it's over.

[TCJ70]

40. Especially since there were no consequences...n/t

[procon]

81. Since the investigation found no evidence of intent, what "consequences" do you imagine? nt

[TCJ70]

82. I'm not really sure that intent matters so much...

...there are rules and standards for handing classified materials. Disregarding those rules should have some sort of ramifications. If not, then why have the rules at all?

[procon]

118. Its an important legal distintion.

Comey specifically included that term in his remarks as it has legal ramifications that removes the question of criminal activity. Here's the thing; Rules are not the same as Laws. This investigation was about the law, and now we know there was nothing that rose to the level of anything like a prosecutable offense.

So, she got a verbal slap on the wrist for being "careless", but no law was broken and no crimes were committed worthy of any follow up action. What exactly are looking for in additional charges and punishments your quest to teach Hillary Clinton a lesson?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Administrative sanctions.

Not every violation of a rule is a violation of law.

[lapucelle]

187. Read the statute.

Or better yet, go to law school for three years and then read the statute.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Because intelligent people don't change errant behavior unless punished, right?

[TCJ70]

97. I should use that if I ever get pulled over for speeding...

...I mean, if mishandling classified information doesn't have consequences, why should something as minor as speeding?

All rules that "matter" have resulting consequences for not adhering to them. If they don't, why have the rules at all?

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. LOL ... I don't think that is the response you want to post ...

I should use that if I ever get pulled over for speeding...

If you get pulled over for speeding, then you haven't changed your errant behavior ... so maybe you SHOULD be punished. Some people don't learn without punishment.

[TCJ70]

112. Haven't been given the chance yet...

...since I've never had a speeding ticket. Not that it really matters in this discussion.

[tk2kewl]

45. I hope she has finally learned. I suppose we may get to find out

[MohRokTah]

41. .

[rateyes]

199. ...

:rof:


You are so fucking original in your replies.

[MohRokTah]

201. I saw the exact same thread on Jackass Laughables, so it CRACKED ME UP!

[rateyes]

203. You get cracked up quite a bit at stuff that

really isn't that damned funny. Are you gonna laugh that hard if and when one of those emails with top secret info is leaked to the press by some hacker? Hillary fucked up, and she knows it. That's why she apologized for it.

[MohRokTah]

206. Oh it's FUCKING HILARIOUS ALL RIGHT!!!! THE INDICTMENT FAIRY DIED!!!!!

[rateyes]

209. And yet, the civil suit continues.

Fucking hilarious.

[MohRokTah]

212. THAT'S EVEN MORE PATHETICALLY HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!

[rateyes]

214. Yep. Judge Sullivan subpoenas Hillary.

Her lawyer moves to quash, loses motion. Hillary is deposed, and the depo is recorded this time. Pagliano has already pled the fifth. Wonder what Hillary will do. Yep. Pathetically fucking hilarious.

I am glad she wasn't indicted because I loathe Trump, but excuse me if I fail to find the humor in this fuck up. Just another example of poor judgment on her part.

[MohRokTah]

216. And now they're pushing the LAWSUIT FAIRY!!!!!

[rateyes]

219. Who is they?

[patricia92243]

44. I think we must wait and see how the Republicans handle it. Of course right off the bat, she will

should make a speech that she is grateful for the facts to clear her of criminal wrongdoing.

[Renew Deal]

46. Bwahahaha

[joshcryer]

53. Fixing the holes in the system.

Easy.

[CrowCityDem]

56. Since Trump is in a massive, multi-state fraud lawsuit, I think we're fine.

[Jim Lane]

195. If you mean Trump University, there's no indictment and probably will be none.

I was going to post about Trump U. because it illustrates the insufficiency of saying "She wasn't indicted." In other contexts, Democrats are fine with going on the attack over alleged misconduct (Vitter's adultery, Trump's shady business practices, Romney's exploitation of the "carried interest" loophole to reduce his taxes) when a Republican has done something scurrilous that nevertheless falls short of being a criminal offense. As long as we criticize the likes of Vitter, Trump, and Romney, it's hypocritical to say that a failure to indict means that there's no there there and it's all over and there's nothing to see.

[NCTraveler]

57. I suggest you work your ass off and help Clinton to get elected.

Once done, lobby her office to make these meet punishments more suited to your thoughts on the topic. I personally don't have the same issues as you so will not be helping in your endeavor.

I see no reason to deal with it outside of using it to improve government. We know this isn't the first time similar things have been done. You should really work with Clinton to improve the processes so many government employees try to avoid for many reasons.

I get that there is a strong authoritarian bent punishment loving crowd out there. There is simply nothing here that should even make them salivate or ask "how do Democrats deal with this". Assuming you are a Democrat, and seeing this is extremely important to you, I suggest you get involved in making our government IT process work better for it's people.

I have a feeling Clinton is going to be way ahead of you on this one.

[lapucelle]

60. Clinton made mistakes.

She acknowledged them and said she learned from the experience.

GW Bush ignored intelligence that could have prevented 9/11, yet he was reelected. There have been multiple reports of government servers being compromised this year, but no cries for criminal charges or resignations. FBI director Comey revealed that his information was hacked this year. That was extremely careless, James.

Funny how it's the woman being held to the standard of perfection.

[MyNameGoesHere]

62. I think Some democrats are going to accept it for what it is

And some democrats will feel justified and move away, and then other Democrats will elect Clinton. Just my guess from the predictable posts and replies that reveal much in two clicks.

[The Second Stone]

63. How do Sanders fans deal with it? That's the question

This is no surprise to anyone who was not mistaking Bernie Sanders for the Second Coming of Christ. It was no surprise to Sanders, who dismissed it as garbage half a year ago. At least he managed to personally look connected to reality then and now over the issue.

I think that all the people who hate Hillary Clinton, left and right, should take this as an opportunity to consider that they have been lied to about her for 25 years, and have been lying to themselves. She isn't perfect, but she is a good person and a good candidate.

[PJMcK]

67. K&R (n/t)

[Dem2]

71. the primary is over

I think we can leave these arguments to the Republicans don't you?

[Dem2]

70. And?

The primary is over why are you trying to help the Republicans?

[DesMoinesDem]

94. Posting on DU doesn't help Republicans or Democrats, regardless of what is posted.

DU is a tiny site read by very few people. It has no effect whatsoever on the election.

[Dem2]

100. So you are trying to help the Republicans?

I don't see that as a defense. This is a public forum dedicated to electing Democrats.

[DesMoinesDem]

129. Can you not read or did you just completely ignore my post.

Are you trying to help Republicans by making Democrats look stupid? Seems like it.

[uponit7771]

72. Who gives a fuck? If its splodey heads they were going to splode anyway

[DesMoinesDem]

96. Did you lose a bet? Why are you saying splodey in every thread?

Are you trying to make yourself look stupid?

[Dem2]

135. You seem to enjoy implying people are stupid

You know which other political candidate uses ad hominems whenever they get cornered?

[Dem2]

142. Very interesting

[geek tragedy]

150. You don't count yourself as a supporter of hers in the fall election? nt

[ismnotwasm]

73. Meh.

[procon]

74. Comey says 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring a case against Clinton.

End of story. The FBI findings show Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law. Given everything else that she has had to deal with, this is a cakewalk. She can handle it.

Maybe we should be asking you why you object to the FBI's conclusion that there simply is no there, there?

[stonecutter357]

78. No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

[awake]

79. The other concern is the GOP in congress

We need to be ready for "hearings" on this, as much as we all would like I am sure that the Replubicans will not let go of this issue and will be using FBI quotes soon in their ads. Yes Hillary was not indicted but she did not come out clean with no hits. I am afraid this will not be gone as easly as hoped.

[Mike Nelson]

83. How many times is this story going...

...to be trotted out? We know what happened... it's over.

[Dawson Leery]

85. Will someone tell this loser that Hillary is the official nominee?!? see below

https://twitter.com/cenkuygur

[apcalc]

87. It's over. We do not comment on it.

[floppyboo]

88. I also wonder what Democrats should do

aside from moving on. But what an uphill battle. Of course Trump seems to be levelling that hill daily, so thank god for that!

They are going to be hammering away at the other points Comey made. He basically called her a liar and unqualified. That's tough coming from the FBI - but he tried that before with Whitewater, and that didn't stop her from getting to where she is today.

I look forward to hearing how her campaign today with Obama goes. He is a super convincing speaker.

[JoePhilly]

90. By mocking the endless search for new outrages!

[hughee99]

91. I don't think that's really the part of the statement we should be most concerned about.

Sure, the republicans will point out that the FBI has basically admitted that what they were claiming was true, but then went on to say that it's not sufficient to prosecute. If the FBI did a fair job, and is being consistent in it's assessment of this time of activity, then one can always point to an objective party's assessment of the situation. They can say that there was no special influence, no special treatment, the activities just simply don't warrant any kind of punishment.

Until Director Comey dropped this turd in his statement

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

This is basically an admission that the way Clinton was handled should not be considered a precedent and a different person engaged in a similar activity should not expect the same treatment. It is more than sufficient for the republican machine to suggest that improper influence was exerted on the FBI.

[anigbrowl]

99. Not really

Cabinet secretaries actually have the authority to make decisions like this and are answerable to the President; this isn't an attitude of mine, it's how the law is written. Lower-grade people do not enjoy such privileges except insofar as they are delegated to them by more senior figures.

[hughee99]

110. No, not at all.

The law is not written in such a way as to allow cabinet secretaries the authority to send and received classified information on unsecured systems. The FBI did not determine that she had the authority to do so, or even declare that she didn't break any laws. They simply said that what she did wasn't bad enough that a reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. They didn't say she didn't do anything illegal, just that it wasn't sufficient to prosecute, and that just because they're not recommending prosecution in this particular situation, it doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend prosecution for a similar action by someone else.

[anigbrowl]

274. Oh really

I think you'll find that the secretary of state actually has extensive authority to make determinations about what is or is not classifiable.

As for your argument that it was illegal but not prosecutable, LOL at your claim that they just couldn't figure out a way to do it.

[hughee99]

275. The SoS has considerably authority to classify material, but they do not have nearly as much

authority to declassify material based on their own personal opinion, particularly material that is generated and already classified by other departments.

As far is the recommendation that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, Comey brings up the issue of intent, which after his investigation, I'll bet he was pretty sure they would never be able to establish. For similar cases involving classified material, like Patreus for example, they were able to prove not only that he exposed classified material, but they were also able to prove that he intentionally did so.

[floppyboo]

108. I missed that 'little turd'

Is this the same as Holder finding misdemeanors for Petreas? Like, someone else should follow up on his serious criticisms? Except it can't be Lynch, as she said she'd go along with the FBI recommendation, which Comey said was made before Bill and Loretta met up? This isn't going to go away, I'm afraid. But we knew that.

Just can't see the convention being a very happy party. Maybe I worry too much. Trump is evil. Anyone else watch the 2-part interview on DemocracyNow with his biographer? Shivers!!!

[geek tragedy]

149. it's not an admission, it's a former Ken Starr flunky getting in his partisan attack

while pretending to do his job.

[hughee99]

155. If he wanted to get his partisan attack in, why didn't he just recommend prosecution?

At the very least, he could have given NO recommendation on prosecution at all and left it up to the justice department.

The statement looks more like he's covering his ass, because at some point in the future another case will be compared to this one and the defense will be "I didn't do it on purpose, it was just carelessness on my part" and that person's lawyer will ask for the same treatment Clinton just got.

[geek tragedy]

156. "will ask for the same treatment Clinton just got."

So you think Clinton should have been prosecuted and is getting special treatment?

[hughee99]

157. I think that statement from Comey is an admission that this particular situation was considered

"special" and that the treatment Clinton received should not be considered the standard for these same circumstances in the future.

I don't know if Clinton should be prosecuted or not, but the statement sounds a lot like Comey suggesting she got special treatment, which I why I said that THIS was the part that was going to be a problem. Whether she did or not, Comey's comment certainly will be spun that way by republicans.

How does Clinton go about proving she DIDN'T get special treatment? How successful do you think her PR people will be at painting Comey as "someone out to get her", when he not only didn't recommend prosecution, but recommended against it?

[geek tragedy]

158. what part of "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" was ambiguous? nt

[hughee99]

160. What part of this is ambiguous?

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now"

You asked me if I thought she should be prosecuted and I said I didn't know. Why didn't I know? Because Comey also said that under similar circumstances, a person who did the same thing might be charged. Comey contradicts himself.

If you want to take Comey's word that no prosecutor should charge her for this, why won't you take his word that she received different treatment than others in a similar situation may get in the future?

[geek tragedy]

161. you're misstating what Comey was saying, blatantly so

If you look up the word "consequences" in the dictionary, the first definition is not "criminal charges."

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now"

What he's saying is that people who engage in poor judgment with classified materials may face "security or administrative sanctions" not that they would face criminal charges, which are judicial proceedings.

He is not contradicting himself.

He is not saying she's receiving different treatment under the criminal justice system than someone else might.

It is false and misleading to characterize him as saying that someone who engaged in Clinton's behavior might find themselves prosecuted.

[hughee99]

167. Look up the definition of consequences in the dictionary, it doesn't specifically exclude

criminal charges either. You have interpreted this in a reasonable way, but that is not the only interpretation possible. Getting back to my original point, which is what I've been saying all along...

This is how the republican machine will interpret this statement. They'll point to this and tell the people "Look, even the FBI director says she got special treatment."

You're arguing with me, seemingly in an attempt to convince ME that I'M not reading this correctly. I'm not your problem here, I'm not Clinton's problem. I pointing out that this statement can make all sorts of trouble for Clinton, and can do so in a way that will make it difficult to fight when dealing with a large audience that listens to small soundbytes. How can she prove she didn't get special treatment? Is the FBI going to open their books and talk about all the cases where they didn't recommend prosecution?

[geek tragedy]

168. The FBI director--a career Republican who worked for Ken freaking Starr at the OIC, said

no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.

That's unambiguous.

[hughee99]

169. The same guy, an Obama appointee, approved by a Dem senate

Said enough to give the impression that Clinton may have gotten special treatment. If you don't see how the republicans will try to spin that, I don't know what else to say.

[geek tragedy]

170. Republicans will try to spin anything against Democrats, precious

little we can do except destroy their nominee.

[hughee99]

171. I agree. I'm suggesting THIS might be one of those things they can get a little traction on.

I'm not saying they should, but it's really easy to convince people that "the fix is in" and that the rich and powerful don't play by the same rules as the common people. People are already predisposed to believe it, and frankly, most people don't know (or care) who Comey is, used to work for, was appointed by or what his party affiliation is.

What they know is that there was a lot of news for a long time about Clinton's email, then the FBI director put out a statement saying that some of it was true, but they're not going to bring any charges, and then made a statement that could give someone the impression that Clinton did not get the same treatment others might get in the same situation.

You don't need to talk to someone for an hour, have them read a book or watch a video. In less than 30 seconds, you can lay out that information and the average, marginally informed, undecided voter will quickly decide that Clinton got special treatment, whether it's true or not. It's a really easy argument to make.

The question is, will those voters care?

[DLCWIdem]

225. except in this instance there are adjectives used to modify the word consequences

These two adjectives are security and administrative. If the modifying adjective was legal that would be a different story.

[hughee99]

226. Do you feel this gramatacal distinction will prevent the republicans from being able to portray

this as "special treatment" to the casual voter? People are already inclined to believe the rich and powerful receive special treatment, and I'm not convinced many will understand the nuance of this statement.

[DLCWIdem]

227. the repugs would have claimed "special treatment" anyway

They were gearing up to this regardless. The rump tweeted "system rigged" before Comey came out. Democrats knew they were saying it.

[hughee99]

228. I agree, and I think this statement will be used to

Support their argument to the casual voter who won't bother to look any further into the intention of this statement beyond a 10 second soundbyte.

[DLCWIdem]

233. the casual observer would have to follow a arguement rather than take what is said at face value

If they are that interested to follow it up with Repug sources then they probably wouldn't be for Hill anyway.

[hughee99]

236. Not really, the republicans will claim that Clinton got special treatement and then say that even

the FBI director admitted that someone else, under similar circumstances, could still face disciplinary action. While not technically untrue, it's not an accurate portrayal of that statement, and it will leave the the casual observer with the impression that she got special treatment and even the FBI said so. If they don't follow up, that will be the impression they are left with.

[DLCWIdem]

239. and the person argueing against the arguement could actually point out

Comey's own words with the qualifying adjective modifiers.

[hughee99]

245. Sure, but most of the spin that's put out isn't done in a debate style forum, and the casual

voter doesn't often tune it to watch political debate/discussions.

[lapucelle]

183. "security or administrative sanctions" are workplace consequences,

not criminal prosecutions. Are you arguing that because someone did something that might get him in trouble at work, that person should be open to criminal prosecution?

[lapucelle]

193. You're equivocating.

An administrative sanction is not a criminal prosecution.

[hughee99]

200. I'm not doing in this all over again, please read #167 and #171 and feel free to argue my points.

If you think you're fighting the good fight by trying to convince ME I'm wrong, you're making the wrong argument.

Convince me that what I've said isn't how the republicans are going to spin it, and convince me that marginally informed independent voters won't buy it.

At the very least, explain to me how Clinton (or her PR team) can make a brief but convincing case to the people that explains why she didn't get preferential treatment.

[lapucelle]

213. I'm sorry if people are disappointed that someone who did not commit a crime

is not going to be prosecuted.

I'm equally sorry for those who have difficulty making distinctions between what they were hoping to hear and what was actually said.

But let me assure you that your concern is duly noted.

[hughee99]

217. Well, given your weeks of experience here, it

Truly means a lot to me that you have noted my concern. Let me ask you, given that the thread is about the political fallout that could come from Comey's statements, do you feel I was out line discussing the political fallout that could come from Comey's statements? If you feel like I'm not living up to the standards set in the ToS (that's Terms of Service), I would strongly encourage you to alert on any or all of my offending posts.

[DLCWIdem]

224. regardless of what Comey said they would have spun it that way anyway

[creeksneakers2]

229. The Republicans spin always

If Hillary got a 100% clean bill of health they'd just say it was fixed. The Clintons were completely cleared lots of times on lots of things and the GOP just repeats the same accusations anyway. "See how slippery the Clintons are? They got away with it again."

[hughee99]

232. I agree, but Clinton didn't get 100% clean bill of health, and IMHO Comey provided additional

fodder for the republican spin machine.

[DLCWIdem]

220. IMO I read that to mean a person lower on the total pile would be fired or demoted

[hughee99]

221. Actually a great deal of it is ambiguous.

I didn't really think much about it when I initially posted, but after reading geek tragedy's argument, I realized it IS ambiguous, and that's the problem.
Though the most logical reading is that people could face punishment less than criminal prosecution, it's vague enough that it can be spun other ways, which I think the republicans will do. In an age where arguments are made in 30 second sound bytes, I think this statement could be used to the republicans political advantage.

[DCBob]

92. With what??

[tonyt53]

102. Democrats keep their minds on the ultimate goal, that's how.

[redstatebluegirl]

103. Give it a rest!!!!

I am growing weary of this day after day from Democrats!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Thank you for your concern.

[k8conant]

114. It's obvious that those Democrats who already supported Hillary

will tend to ignore any of Comey's statements except for the recommendation of no criminal charges.

The rest of us Democrats will take all the facts into consideration.

[DemonGoddess]

116. There are also PLENTY of us who remember

when Comey was the lead investigator for Starr. I think that's what sparked his additional comments, aside from reporting on the investigation itself. I don't think he could help himself.

[okasha]

173. And another factor.

Comey will not be asked to remain in his job next January precisely because he was one of Starr's henchmen. That may color his responses, too.

[JTFrog]

134. Into consideration for what?

[geek tragedy]

148. What are you considering? nt

[randome]

115. And on and on it goes.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[jcgoldie]

117. The primaries have been over for awhile

Time to let to stop dreaming of a hail mary pass.

[fleabiscuit]

120. If it was me I'd find a sitting President and campaign with him...

[treestar]

121. Investigate everyone else

Just as much. Make sure Kerry has a good system.

Investigate all trump businesses to see if he handles all flawlessly

[beachbumbob]

128. It's over...

Move on that's how we deal with it

[Historic NY]

130. The State Dept had such an antiquated system that was hacked numerous times....

Supports Security Programs and Overseas Facilities. The Budget supports the security programs and overseas facilities that are critical to the global operating platform for diplomacy and development. The Budget includes $6.1 billion for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance and Worldwide Security Protection, including Diplomatic Security (DS) operations, IT network and infrastructure protection, medical support at selected posts, and emergency planning and preparedness. This amount also includes funding for diplomatic facility construction and maintenance to continue the Department’s commitment to implementing the security recommendations of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, as well as the ongoing repair and safety of over $40.0 billion in overseas real property assets.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/02/252213.htm


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/09/fact-sheet-cybersecurity-national-action-plan

[Adrahil]

131. I think this is a repost of a JPR post you made.

I'm sure you'll get the loons over there to give you the answers you seek.

[zappaman]

141. !!!

[Surya Gayatri]

177. Oh, snap...caught in flagrante delicto! Delicious!

[nolawarlock]

189. It amazes me that they don't realize we check.

I am disappointed that that site is linked on here so often since you can't post right wing hate sites and there is as much hate against our presumptive nominee on there as there is anywhere.

Between the calls for violent revolution, non-violent revolution, sit-ins, and the idea that their candidate will run in every imaginable third party combination possible shows a level of denial I've never seen in my lifetime. At first they freaked out about the recommendation not to indict. However, a few hours later and they're all thinking this is going to give them weight with the superdelegates again.

I've said this for months. I'll say it again. The supers are not going to switch. But they can keep on believing that if it helps them sleep. LOL

[Jim Lane]

237. It amazes me that you don't realize we check.

For example, in this very subthread, I've learned that one of Clinton's supporters thinks I'm a loon, and that no Clinton supporters have seen fit to demur from this characterization, choosing instead to respond with enthusiastic praise.

Duly noted.

[nolawarlock]

243. Weird. I did a search for the word "Loon" and didn't find it.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my point though, but I'm sorry if people are saying you're crazy.

[Jim Lane]

246. It's in #131.

Title: 131. I think this is a repost of a JPR post you made.
Text: I'm sure you'll get the loons over there to give you the answers you seek.

I note that, in your post to me, you wrote "Loon" with a capital L. If you did a Ctrl-F search for "Loon" and selected or defaulted to "Match case", then you would have missed the post. That's the only thing I can think of for how your search could have failed.

Anyway, thanks for your comment.

[nolawarlock]

247. Well to be fair,

That person wasn't calling you a loon, just an indeterminate amount of people over at that JPR site since he or she didn't specify all of them. Quite frankly, I can't say I disagree with that assessment. Even with the whole "support the candidate" rule, I see far more diversity in thought here than over there, in spite of folks saying, "they allow us to discuss ideas!" Really? Try discussing Hillary in a positive way over there and you'll see how open they are to ideas. I think most of the people over there sound like they're in a cult. It's downright creepy. I've seen people over there say they would crawl through glass to vote for Trump. I mean, really? Really? On a so-called progressive site? They aren't a progressive site. They're a Bernie cult of personality site. The site owner seemed to be trying to move away from that and nearly got burned at the stake for taking out the "All things Bernie" section and not using Bernie's image in the logo. I've never seen more self-deluded tripe in my entire life. So yeah, "loons" is the right word for some of them over there and the overall mission as well. I'm just astonished that it's ok to post that site here the way it is. They are as anti-Democrat as any site on the Web.

[Jim Lane]

253. Challenge accepted!

You write:

Try discussing Hillary in a positive way over there and you'll see how open they are to ideas.

In a thread about Huma Abedin destroying documents, I made this post saying it wasn't a big deal. That's not exactly cheering Hillary for her advocacy for single-payer (I wish I could make a post like that), but it's at least defending her against an accusation. I wasn't PPR'd, the post wasn't hidden, and I even drew some agreement.

As for the Clinton supporters' personal attacks on Sanders supporters, I understand the point you're making. When I assembled the collection of quotations in my sig line, I of course couldn't come anywhere near being complete. One of my criteria was to omit those that expressly or impliedly referred only to some of us. This use of "loons" probably wouldn't have made the cut.

The more important question, though, is whether posts like that one help or hurt Hillary Clinton's chances of being elected President. My (admittedly biased) opinion is that they hurt her chances.

[nolawarlock]

254. Are you serious?

If I were to go on there and say "I think Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie," I'd be hurled off of there. Granted, that might be true here as well in reverse, but only after the primary. It's been there all along and they have this bizarre rule that you can't even talk about Bernie losing the election unless it's in the context of Hillary stealing it.

[Jim Lane]

256. Your view is jaundiced.

The JPR "rule" you cite was indeed enunciated -- evidently in a fit of pique, because I've never seen it applied once, and I've seen numerous posts that would violate it.

The bitterness of the nomination fight prompted people from both camps to desert DU, or at least to spend some time elsewhere. The DU admins themselves set up a separate pro-Clinton board. That's even aside from a certain hate-filled cesspool site where Clinton supporters whooped it up about successful alert stalking of Sanders supporters. Unsurprisingly, Sanders supporters felt the same need for a place where they wouldn't have to put up with brickbats from across the fence. The DU admins inadvertently encouraged that tendency with an amnesty that was perceived, rightly or wrongly, as welcoming back some of the worst offenders on the Clinton side, despite numerous well-deserved hides, while Sanders supporters like Manny and WillyT remained exiled.

I appreciate your recognition that DU is now a constricted forum. Whatever one says about the character of the discussions here before June 20, it's clear that now there's not much allowable disagreement. As a result, many longtime DUers with high post counts are now posting primarily or exclusively on JPR. That's a loss to DU. And, yes, many people have stayed here, never posting on JPR, and their absence from JPR means that that site, also, is not as good as DU used to be.

[nolawarlock]

271. I think it should be constricted in that way.

Whether or not it was applied consistently is irrelevant. That's like the arguments my friends make that they think that Trump will secretly support my gay marriage. If you have the rule, you have the rule, and it's a ridiculous rule. And the site also makes it clear that it supports Sanders as the candidate. I'm surprise they even allow the Jill Stein posts.

If the goal is to get Democrats elected, allowing the plethora of "I hope Bernie runs third party" posts that dominate so much of the discourse over at JPR on this site runs entirely counter to the message of "Democratic" Underground, Democratic Sideways, Democratic Mountaintop, or any other variation of a site dedicated to Democrats.

And frankly, I and many other Hillary supporters were alert-stalked on this website constantly when 80% of the site were Bernie supporters and controlled the jury system. I was FFR for weeks. And I think anyone defending WillyH for his racist behavior should perhaps analyze what they find acceptable in political discourse. I don't believe that he should be given a platform here or anywhere else.

As for the loss to DU, it's not a loss to DU because their naysaying provides both reporters and pundits fodder for negative stories about our candidate and I am reticent to even say that in this post because of that potential. I have been in the public eye for over a decade. I can say with confidence that it's a bad idea to have a free-for-all on any message board if you're trying to direct a narrative, and the narrative of this site is to get Democrats elected.

There is a point to where people should just realize they lost. I thought the PUMAs were nuts eight years ago and I was a Hillary supporter then too. This just takes it to a whole new ridiculous level. It's like they're not even aware of how crazy they sound over there.

[Jim Lane]

278. You're certainly correct that JPR prioritizes progressive change over getting Democrats elected

One of the first votes I ever cast was for a Republican candidate who was more progressive than his Democratic challenger. That was long before DU was established. I suppose that, if the same election were to occur today, I'd have to go over to JPR to tout the virtues of the more progressive candidate.

Electing Democrats and achieving social progress are two different goals. Therefore, even though they're usually compatible, they'll sometimes diverge. Each website has made its choice about which goal to pursue in such conflict cases.

Some of the people on JPR would like to see Bernie run third-party (which, in my opinion, there is zero chance he'll do), but others on JPR don't favor that approach. A difference between JPR and DU is that the pros and cons of such a run may be discussed there but not here.

You complain about alert stalking. What I know is that, from both sides of the Clinton-Sanders divide, there were repeated charges of alert stalking. I saw posts hidden that were, IMO, perfectly proper, with the only logical explanation for the hide being that the unlucky poster ran into at least four jurors who voted their partisan passions rather than their obligations as jurors. Most importantly, I saw such posts from both sides. At the hate-filled cesspool site that I mentioned, I saw sack dances when the alert stalking of Bernie supporters succeeded.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard 80% or 85% or whatever number is used, therefore the Sanders people are in total control, therefore the Clinton people are a poor persecuted oppressed minority, wah wah wah. It seems that many Clinton supporters use that trusty old argument to tell themselves that abuse of the jury system ran only one way and every pro-Clinton DUer was a perfect angel. They're deluding themselves. Abuse ran both ways.

And the admins, to their credit, were upfront about being totally on the Clinton side. If you want to defend the expulsion of WillyT -- over, IIRC, two posts deemed offensive -- then you'll have to explain why so many pro-Clinton people with double-digit hide counts were amnestied back in. Did their conduct, and the quotations in my sig, reflect what you "find acceptable in political discourse"?

I don't share your concern that posts on DU would help generate negative stories about Clinton. Another major Clinton-supporter meme for more than a year has been that Clinton has for more than 20 years been the target of an unremitting barrage of Republican attacks, and is now therefore bullet-proof. I can't imagine that any criticism of Clinton posted on DU told the GOP anything they didn't already know. For that reason, I don't see how the new DU rules will protect Clinton from criticism out in the real world.

As to the loss to DU, it's a matter of perception. My own perception is that JPR plus the new, restricted DU are, even taken together, less valuable than the old DU was. The obvious problem is that, even aside from rules, posters on both sites are largely preaching to the choir.

[nolawarlock]

248. p.s.

I also haven't seen your posts there so you may be one of the sensible voices there for all I know, but I can say that there aren't that many. I thought the PUMAs were nuts in 2008 but this doesn't just take the cake; it takes the whole bakery.

[fun n serious]

136. She did NOT have this private server to HIDE anything

she did not do it to intend be deceptive! It was Convenience and nothing more. My guess is she did it becuase she is a work aholic and wanted to work from any place she would be. She already apologize and said she should not have done it. What more do you want?

[HassleCat]

140. Here's an idea.

Nobody cares. If they did, they don't any longer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.

"Not indicted" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Not guilty". Hell, even Nixon wasn't indicted.

[JTFrog]

145. Yeah, the Republicans have been making their living creating bogus perceptions for decades.

That doesn't mean we should help them.

[geek tragedy]

147. your CONCERN is duly noted nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

152. I'm not concerned.

[geek tragedy]

154. obviously nt

[emulatorloo]

198. That's ok, we all 'perceive' your agenda

Smearing Democrats and drawing false equivalencies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

204. Where's the "smearing" and "false equivalincies" part of my post?

[emulatorloo]

207. This part

"Hell, even Nixon wasn't indicted."

- False equivalency between HRC and Nixon
- "Forgetting" that Nixon was impeached.

The majority of DU'ers aren't as gullible and stupid as you think they are.

You have a body of work at DU, and I have never once seen you criticize a Republican.

Just sloganeering and anti-Democratic innuendo.

That is my 'perception'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

215. Obviously, you missed a lot of my posts.

I certainly didn't forget that Nixon was impeached. Because I worked swing shift at the time I was able to watch most of the Watergate proceedings. As I'm I am sure you recall, Nixon was impeached but not indicted or tried.

Where's the "smear" part? I didn't say that Hillary of anything. Nor do I believe she is guilty of any crime. Nor, did I even mention her name. I just pointed out that just being accused can sometimes have similar effects to actually committing a crime.

Further, I don't think that most DUers are gullible and stupid and are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions about the matter.

[workinclasszero]

146. Its OVER!

Anymore threads of "concern" over this SETTLED issue is only serving to help TRUMP!

[Squinch]

151. You poor dear.

[Tarc]

159. We "deal with it" by declaring this fucking nonsense over and done with

End of story.

[okasha]

162. Easy.

We know for certain that "properly secure," official system have been hacked, by Chelsea Manning and others.

There is no evidence that Secretary Clinton's system was hacked.

End of story.

[rbrnmw]

163. Concern duly noted and put in the appropriate file!!!!

[baldguy]

166. DEMOCRATS will cheer at the failure of another unfounded Republican witchhunt.

Sorry, no indictment fairy for you, or any other anti-Democratic forces.

[TheKentuckian]

172. Be glad the opponent is an incompetent, somewhat insane, racist, and only a semi sentient

yet absurdly egotistical talking yam that is way past his sell by date while drinking away any thoughts about government transparency and accountability to the public?

[seabeyond]

175. " how do Democrats deal with this:" We kick ass Nov 4th.

[RandySF]

176. Give it up. Hillary is the nominee.

[gg4usa]

179. Please download and post on Facebook

[Walk away]

180. I'm moving on to insisting that all candidates finally show us their taxes!!!!!!

Let's see what's being hidden by those who are terrified to make them public!!!! It must be something really embarrassing or illegal.

[Metric System]

181. 10 recs? 10 too many. But glad to see so few.