May 30, 2016

Restrictions w/r/t software

as well as the explicitly stated purpose of electing Bernie president (i.e. limiting discussion) has precluded my activity at that site to a great degree as well. There's a bit of purpose-reimagining that I hope the founders are undergoing (or considering undergoing).

Some of us are shortly going to be outcasts looking to immigrate, and I don't want to drown on rough seas or rocky shoals. Almost any port in a storm, but the least difficult one to transition to is preferred.

May 30, 2016

This seems more devastating than I believed.

I have been of the opinion that even though Hillary Clinton probably violated the law with respect to classified information passing through her personal server, that she would escape indictment. You know, just because. But I seem to be more generous than this guy.

More to the point, though, you fear that the most likely Democrat nominee, having just been seriously wounded by this week’s IG report, is manifestly vulnerable to a much greater wound in the form of a criminal indictment for misconduct that far transcends what the IG report dealt with. Specifically, as a sophisticated observer, you are aware that Former Secretary Clinton’s intent (known in criminal law as mens rea), or lack of same, is not what matters in this case. Rather, the applicable legal standard is a mere “gross negligence” one, as specified in the standard national security non-disclosure agreement that she signed and its underlying criminal statutes.

This guy, who worked at DOJ -- when now-FBI Director Comey served as deputy AG there during the W Bush admin. -- says that if the Bureau recommends indictment to a federal grand jury and they don't return one... that would still be a mortal blow to her presidential aspirations.

So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you prefer?

Obviously, the answer might well be possibility (d): No indictment at all. But if that were not a realistic possibility, and remembering that your absolute imperative in this election cycle is to avoid at all costs ending up with a President Donald Trump, your preference is clear: You want a Democrat other than either Clinton or Sanders to go up against Trump in November, unorthodox as that might now sound.

I'm not sure that I agree, especially when you consider the scenario for replacing her that he is suggesting (President Biden/Hillary's running mate, anyone?).

In short, you want a Biden/Kerry ticket, a Kerry/Biden one (less likely), or a ticket with either one of them (preferably Vice President Biden) together with whomever Hillary Clinton picks as her running mate in July.

What? An already-chosen running mate? Yes, her running mate, chosen by her as the presidential nominee — because you want Clinton to be replaced as your nominee (i.e., after the convention), but not with Senator Sanders, for all the reasons stated above.

Anyway, we'll wait and see what happens.

May 30, 2016

Spot on

Especially the ranting about our current state of political play with MLB.com on in the corner of my eye.

He and Kos and Maddow have all drunk the Blue Koolaid, can no longer discern what's good for party from what's good for country.

May 30, 2016

Nate Silver would rather

talk about baseball stats than politics.

May 27, 2016

She thought she did.

No, really. And if she did break the rules (or the law), she didn't mean to. But she didn't. Break the law. Or the rules, no matter what that mean old State Dept IG report said.

By the way, did you know that mortgage companies that defrauded both the borrowers and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are making the same excuse? So it turns out that we actually are prosecuting the people responsible for the 2008-09 Great Depression, but appeals court judges are overturning those convictions.

(This is how you know Clinton will skate, folks. It's all rigged. All of it. For them, and against us.)

May 27, 2016

My 90 year old mother can, though.

Is anybody on Team Clinton embarrassed by this revelation?

May 25, 2016

The absolute, rigid denial has carried them this far

So no, they won't. As for the party itself, they'll install Biden as a one-termer and his vice-president as the person who runs in 2020. Just spit-ballin' here; the one thing I feel certain about is that Bernie will not be allowed to become the nominee of this Democratic Party no matter what.

But even though I believe Clinton is guilty of the same crime Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were indicted and prosecuted for -- mishandling classified information -- I do not believe she will be indicted. People who are obviously guilty of crimes are no-billed every day by grand juries. Just as people who have committed no violation are indicted, prosecuted, jailed... and even executed.

That's how our 'justice' system works in this country. Clinton will skate, her supporters will puff themselves up, say we were all full of BS, and she will be elected president in a landslide.

(And I expect to be swept out in the purge because of my 'violations'.)

May 25, 2016

Waaaaaay past his sell-by date.

Nate Silver would rather talk baseball statistics, and then there's this place...

It's been a tough cycle for anybody to the left of Hillary Clinton.

May 25, 2016

The difference between murder and manslaughter is

"I didn't mean to".

From what I can tell and from what Clinton's IT professional Bryan Pagliano may or may not be saying as a result of his immunity from prosecution, Hillary very likely is -- like (Sandy) Berger and (David) Petraeus -- criminally responsible for the "mishandling of classified data". The conversation about what is, what is not, and/or what should be classified data or not is a word-definition distraction that nobody, not even the most sycophantic of Clinton supporters, is indulging in any longer.

As we know, people who are guilty of a crime are not always prosecuted for it in the American judicial system, and whether she is eventually indicted or not, whether misdemeanor or felony if so, is to be determined by the conclusions and recommendations of the FBI's investigation, director Comey, AG Lynch, and I suspect even Barack Obama himself.

(Insert "Law and Order"'s DUNH-DUNH sound effect here.)

Like the Cheshire Cat, the Emperor's new clothes, and a few other things that the willfully blind refuse to see... it's right there.

May 24, 2016

Oh, that's been circulating for weeks, months perhaps

I flushed it right away, but you know, it just keeps floating back up.