The anti-American right

[homersapien 11,393]

On 8/5/2021 at 7:58 AM, aubaseball said:

This is all blah blah blah.   Where are the hearings for officers that were on the front lines of Minneapolis, Seattle, D.C, New York and Milwaukee that had to experience the same thing that capital police experienced???? If you don’t know that this is a dog and pony show, you’re an ostrich.   

Can you identify any of that "blah" that's patently false?

[Grumps 3,704]

On 8/5/2021 at 2:51 PM, AU9377 said:

1. Why did they beliIeve that the election had been stolen?

2. Has there been, at any time, proof of that claim?

3. Who made the kool-aid?

I suppose in your America people will only be allowed to believe what you want them to, right?

[Grumps 3,704]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Can you identify any of that "blah" that's patently false?

"peaceful protests"

[jj3jordan 2,056]

On 8/6/2021 at 9:47 AM, aubiefifty said:

i am for prosecuting whomever breaks the law. your party does not seem to agree with me since they are trying to blame it on nancy and what ever else they can dream up.

I don’t recall you espousing for the indictment of Hillary Clinton. Do you wish to revise your statement?

[AU9377 4,979]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

I suppose in your America people will only be allowed to believe what you want them to, right?

Not in the slightest.  I do, however, find it to be imperative that when large groups of people believe something that is provably false, that the question of why they would believe the falsehood is explored.  When a large group of people, capable of intelligently making conclusions based on facts, choose instead to ignore those facts in favor of political propaganda, the very core of the principles this country was founded on are in danger.

[AU9377 4,979]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

I don’t recall you espousing for the indictment of Hillary Clinton. Do you wish to revise your statement?

I do recall public hearings conducted by the Republican controlled House of Representatives going on for months and finding nothing.

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

"peaceful protests"

Actually, most of the George Floyd sparked protests were peaceful, by far, so to characterize them all as violent is patently false.

And they didn't have the intention of effecting a coup.

Edited August 7, 2021 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,056]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I do recall public hearings conducted by the Republican controlled House of Representatives going on for months and finding nothing.

Comey identified several felony crimes she committed but claimed no reasonable prosecutor would charge her, at least not one who didn't want to commit suicide with two shots to the back of the head. She violated numerous classified material laws that would have put any other person in prison. Sorry but your claim of hearings and findings is irrelevant. Her violations don't require any additional proof or alibis. But I would expect the left to try and excuse her crimes on political grounds.  My comment to fiddy related to his statement regarding prosecuting whomever breaks the law. I didn't expect any acknowledgement of her crimes and letting her slide.

Edited August 8, 2021 by jj3jordan

[homersapien 11,393]

On 8/5/2021 at 2:25 PM, aubaseball said:

Last time I checked, FBI was conducting an investigation and people were being arrested.   And I don’t see current republicans going out and raising money for bail.  
if not for political purposes, why is the hearing going on?  Who cares why they did it, they did it and are being arrested.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/05/trump-doj-coup/

It wasn’t just the mob. Government insiders tried to keep Trump in power, too.

A congressional Jan. 6 investigation would help connect the dots

(excerpt)

But the disclosure Tuesday by ABC News of a draft letter from a senior lawyer in the Justice Department in December endorsing an attempt to overturn election results in Georgia should serve as evidence that a full-scale investigation is not just justified but absolutely necessary......

......The Dec. 28 letter, which Jeffrey Clark — at the time the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division — apparently hoped to get signed by acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue, included debunked claims about alleged improprieties in the counting of votes in Georgia. Clark apparently hoped to use those claims as the basis for the Justice Department to formally urge the Georgia legislature to call itself into special session (never mind that Georgia law doesn’t allow such a maneuver), certify a competing slate of electors for Trump (never mind that the deadline for such a move had passed) and thereby give congressional Republicans a justification not just for contesting Biden’s Georgia electors at the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 but for seeking to have Georgia’s electoral votes counted for Trump.......

........We only know about this story because ABC News obtained the draft letter and published it. There’s no official record to rely upon. There’s no witness testimony under penalty of perjury to confirm the New York Times’s reporting. There’s no independent endeavor to identify how many other government officials were involved in this misbegotten, anti-democratic enterprise — or how close it came to succeeding. All we have are media reports. And for as much as we’re better off with those reports than without them, the fact that we’re only now learning about Clark’s letter drives home why a deeper investigation is needed.

Was Clark an outlier, or is he the only one who made the mistake of committing his plotting to paper? That’s the imperative here — to produce a comprehensive narrative documenting efforts from both within the Trump administration and without to prevent Biden from being inaugurated Jan. 20. It seems we all have a compelling interest in finding out — not just for history’s sake but to try to prevent a similar attempt in the future.

Edited August 7, 2021 by homersapien

[AU9377 4,979]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Comey identified several felony crimes she committed but claimed no reasonable prosecutor would charge her, at least not one who didn't want to commit suicide with two shots to the back of the head. She violated numerous classified material laws tat would have put any other person in prison. Sorry but your claim of hearings and findings is irrelevant. Her violations don't require any additional proof or alibis. But I would expect the left to try and excuse her crimes on political grounds.  My comment to fiddy related to his statement regarding prosecuting whomever breaks the law. I didn't expect any acknowledgement of her crimes and letting her slide.

No reasonable prosecutor would charge the crimes because they didn't have the requisite intent to obtain a conviction.  Doing so would have seemed as petty as it truly was and even more so now that we have been subjected to a 4 year term of grift and self dealing on a scale never witnessed in the history of American politics.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Actually, most of the George Floyd sparked protests were peaceful, by far, so to characterize them all as violent is patently false.

And they didn't have the intention of effecting a coup.

Whatever makes you feel good.

[homersapien 11,393]

8 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Whatever makes you feel good.

Truth makes me feel good.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Truth makes me feel good.

I am happy for you!

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, Grumps said:

 

I am happy for you!

I recognize the reality of violent protests that started with peaceful protests.  It happens. 

But to use that as an excuse for right wing anti-American activity - such as the seditious attack on the capital - suggests you might be part of the problem.

Edited August 7, 2021 by homersapien

[Grumps 3,704]

Just now, homersapien said:

I recognize the reality of violent protests that started with peaceful protests.  It happens. 

But to use that as an excuse for right wing anti-American activity - such as the seditious attack on the capital - suggests you might be part of the problem.

Do you mean the peaceful rally on Jan. 6 that turned into a riot by a small portion of the rally-goers that did nowhere near the damage to life or property than did the riots last summer? Who has used those riots as an excuse for the Capitol riot? I think the Capitol riot was inexcusable.

[homersapien 11,393]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you mean the peaceful rally on Jan. 6 that turned into a riot by a small portion of the rally-goers that did nowhere near the damage to life or property than did the riots last summer? Who has used those riots as an excuse for the Capitol riot? I think the Capitol riot was inexcusable.

Yes. 

That riot that resulted from a small portion of those present, who were motivated - like everyone else at the rally - by the big lie that Trump actually won the election.  A huge proportion of right wingers actually believe the big lie, and some proportion of them are willing to act as terrorists by committing violence against the American government.

But all of those who believe the big lie are responsible for spawning terrorism based on it.  It worked the same way in Nazi Germany.  Not every Nazi committed atrocities but their belief and support of Nazism allowed it to happen.

Edited August 7, 2021 by homersapien

[Grumps 3,704]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yes. 

That riot that resulted from a small portion of those present, who were motivated - like everyone else at the rally - by the big lie that Trump actually won the election.  A huge proportion of right wingers actually believe the big lie, and some proportion of them are willing to act as terrorists by committing violence against the American government.

But all of those who believe the big lie are responsible for spawning terrorism based on it.  It worked the same way in Nazi Germany.  Not every Nazi committed atrocities but their belief and support of Nazism allowed it to happen.

Maybe the government and media will soon mandate what we all believe then we can all live happily ever after. Life can then be one mostly peaceful rally!

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

No reasonable prosecutor would charge the crimes because they didn't have the requisite intent to obtain a conviction.  Doing so would have seemed as petty as it truly was and even more so now that we have been subjected to a 4 year term of grift and self dealing on a scale never witnessed in the history of American politics.

Intent is not required or relevant to the violation. You may not understand military law regarding classification issues.

[AU9377 4,979]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Intent is not required or relevant to the violation. You may not understand military law regarding classification issues.

“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” Comey said.

Intent is not part of the espionage act, but it is an element considered when deciding when and when not to prosecute someone.  They found 8 items, emails etc, that were labeled as containing highly or top classified material.  Did you know that several of them were later found to have been contained in published articles that a staffer had emailed to her?  That would automatically remove a portion of the violations. It was petty, just like the Benghazi mess.  Petty.

How many violations do you think they wold find if they took Trump's personal cell phone and did a forensic examination of every text and communication?  His kids as well?  I was never in favor of doing that because just like with Hillary, it would have been petty.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” Comey said.

Intent is not part of the espionage act, but it is an element considered when deciding when and when not to prosecute someone.  They found 8 items, emails etc, that were labeled as containing highly or top classified material.  Did you know that several of them were later found to have been contained in published articles that a staffer had emailed to her?  That would automatically remove a portion of the violations. It was petty, just like the Benghazi mess.  Petty.

How many violations do you think they wold find if they took Trump's personal cell phone and did a forensic examination of every text and communication?  His kids as well?  I was never in favor of doing that because just like with Hillary, it would have been petty.

Are you joking? Comey said this and jumped the gun on a compromised attorney general because he was absolutely positive that Hillary would win the election.  If he did the right thing and recommended charges regardless of whether or not Lynch actually charged her then after the election he would have been fired. He also refused to recommend charges because Bill had met with Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix and she was compromised enough to be unable to charge Hillary. She had hundreds of classified emails on her laptop blackberry and server. It doesn’t remove any violations if somebody sent them to you. She knew as the classification authority (the mfwic responsible for classifying the info) which ones were classified. She kept them on her server so there would be no oversight and she didn’t think anyone would ever find out. She also compromised two operations resulting in a failed rescue attempt and a drone strike that killed civilians and not enemy soldiers. She is guilty and should be in prison.

[AU9377 4,979]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Are you joking? Comey said this and jumped the gun on a compromised attorney general because he was absolutely positive that Hillary would win the election.  If he did the right thing and recommended charges regardless of whether or not Lynch actually charged her then after the election he would have been fired. He also refused to recommend charges because Bill had met with Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix and she was compromised enough to be unable to charge Hillary. She had hundreds of classified emails on her laptop blackberry and server. It doesn’t remove any violations if somebody sent them to you. She knew as the classification authority (the mfwic responsible for classifying the info) which ones were classified. She kept them on her server so there would be no oversight and she didn’t think anyone would ever find out. She also compromised two operations resulting in a failed rescue attempt and a drone strike that killed civilians and not enemy soldiers. She is guilty and should be in prison.

That is such a Fox point of view circa 2016.  Take the time to read the explanation in this Time piece.  Hillary was never my favorite candidate, but the extent to which the far right has gone to paint her as some kind of criminal that has no concern for this country, was somehow responsible for the death of the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi and was running a corrupt foundation that did nothing but collect money in exchange for influence is downright pathetic.  The Foundation was given the highest rating for transparency by independent charity watch groups (and supported causes all over the globe helping people), Benghazi had nothing to do with her, which she clearly pointed out during a couple of days of hearings in which she made Jim Jordan and company look like fools, and the FBI had no evidence that even showed an actual breach leading to confidential information being shared.  Obama should have pulled a Trump in retrospect and just declassified anything on the system at the Clinton's home, the same home that is protected 24/7 by the secret service and will be until she dies.

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

Edited August 8, 2021 by AU9377

[aubiefifty 16,823]

15 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I don’t recall you espousing for the indictment of Hillary Clinton. Do you wish to revise your statement?

how many times has she been investigated now? five? six? hell she stood in front of congress for hours. your statement as usual is a lie and a flagrant one. but that is you. why titan allows you on the political boards is beyond me.

Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust

Condé Nast

4-5 minutes

---

Back in 2017, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s calls for investigations into “Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” the Justice Department launched an inquiry into Hillary Clinton and Republicans' pet conspiracy theories about her and her career. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into concerns that the FBI hadn't fully pursued cases related to the Clinton Foundation, as well as Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the baseless “Uranium One” conspiracy theory championed by conservatives. Now, Huber is finally almost finished with his much-vaunted Clinton investigation—and, unsurprisingly, there isn't really anything to show for it.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that after continuing on for more than two years, Huber's investigation “has effectively ended with no tangible results.” After combing through documents and conferring with federal law enforcement officials looking into the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Post reports that Huber has “found nothing worth pursuing,” let alone any criminal charges. The U.S. attorney has not yet officially reported any results to the Justice Department, however, and the inquiry is technically still ongoing. But officials cited by the Post say that Huber's years-long investigation has by this point “largely finished”—and with nothing to show for it.

Despite Republicans' long insistence on Clinton's wrongdoing—and Trump's favorite “lock her up” rallying cry—the fact that the Huber investigation has reportedly been a bust doesn't seem to come as much surprise to those inside the Justice Department itself. Senior Justice officials cited by the Post said that the investigation had largely been viewed as little more than a way to appease Trump and his Republican allies, and officials expected the inquiry was “unlikely to lead to anything of significance.” “We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did [Huber],” one source told the Post. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”

The news of the DOJ's fruitless investigation comes just a few months after the State Department completed its own investigation into Clinton's emails and use of a private server, which found that while 38 individuals did commit 91 security violations in emails sent to or from the private server, ultimately the server largely wasn't used for transmitting classified information. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” a report on the investigation said. “There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Of course, Clinton being cleared of wrongdoing by Trump's own executive branch isn't about to stop the president from bashing Hillary nonetheless. (Never mind the fact that six of Trump's own associates have been convicted of crimes, or that private email use has reportedly been rampant throughout the Trump administration.) Less than an hour after the Post report came out, Trump was back on the campaign trail attacking Hillary, repeating his favorite 2016 talking points to a crowd of supporters—Clinton's innocence be damned. “Crooked Hillary—you should lock her up, I'll tell you,” Trump told supporters.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

7 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

how many times has she been investigated now? five? six? hell she stood in front of congress for hours. your statement as usual is a lie and a flagrant one. but that is you. why titan allows you on the political boards is beyond me.

Surprise, Surprise: The DOJ’s Hillary Clinton Investigation Has Been a Bust

Condé Nast

4-5 minutes

---

Back in 2017, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s calls for investigations into “Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” the Justice Department launched an inquiry into Hillary Clinton and Republicans' pet conspiracy theories about her and her career. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into concerns that the FBI hadn't fully pursued cases related to the Clinton Foundation, as well as Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the baseless “Uranium One” conspiracy theory championed by conservatives. Now, Huber is finally almost finished with his much-vaunted Clinton investigation—and, unsurprisingly, there isn't really anything to show for it.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that after continuing on for more than two years, Huber's investigation “has effectively ended with no tangible results.” After combing through documents and conferring with federal law enforcement officials looking into the Clinton Foundation in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Post reports that Huber has “found nothing worth pursuing,” let alone any criminal charges. The U.S. attorney has not yet officially reported any results to the Justice Department, however, and the inquiry is technically still ongoing. But officials cited by the Post say that Huber's years-long investigation has by this point “largely finished”—and with nothing to show for it.

Despite Republicans' long insistence on Clinton's wrongdoing—and Trump's favorite “lock her up” rallying cry—the fact that the Huber investigation has reportedly been a bust doesn't seem to come as much surprise to those inside the Justice Department itself. Senior Justice officials cited by the Post said that the investigation had largely been viewed as little more than a way to appease Trump and his Republican allies, and officials expected the inquiry was “unlikely to lead to anything of significance.” “We didn’t expect much of it, and neither did [Huber],” one source told the Post. “And as time went on, a lot of people just forgot about it.”

The news of the DOJ's fruitless investigation comes just a few months after the State Department completed its own investigation into Clinton's emails and use of a private server, which found that while 38 individuals did commit 91 security violations in emails sent to or from the private server, ultimately the server largely wasn't used for transmitting classified information. “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations,” a report on the investigation said. “There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information.” Of course, Clinton being cleared of wrongdoing by Trump's own executive branch isn't about to stop the president from bashing Hillary nonetheless. (Never mind the fact that six of Trump's own associates have been convicted of crimes, or that private email use has reportedly been rampant throughout the Trump administration.) Less than an hour after the Post report came out, Trump was back on the campaign trail attacking Hillary, repeating his favorite 2016 talking points to a crowd of supporters—Clinton's innocence be damned. “Crooked Hillary—you should lock her up, I'll tell you,” Trump told supporters.

Well it certainly does not take much to get beyond you.

My statement was that you did not push for Hillary to be punished for breaking the law. She did break the law, whether or not you believe it. Having classified material on an unsecured personal server or device IS a crime, regardless of intent.  If it was you, there would be jail time. I worked with the state department daily for a year while on active duty. They don't do ANYTHING that is unclassified regarding foreign policy. Conde Nast is not the standard. Neither is a group of politicians.  Hillary was one of 38 (according to you) who did commit 91 security violations. One is all it takes. As Sec State she was actually in on ALL of them. Plus she deleted destroyed and bleach bitted 30,000 more emails then hammered all the devices. So yeah there was nothing there.  Hillary stated that she did not have or use a .gov classified protected email system or server as required for her job. So you saying that she was never apprised of ANY State dept business via email during her tenure?  That's laughable.  

The foundation is a different issue also corrupt but more nebulous as far a legality goes. Uranium 1 and all that. Certainly it was above board to sell Russia a bunch of uranium in case they needed to build some nuclear weapons. Well done there.

My statement is the truth.  Hillary DID commit crimes of classified material regardless of the body of politicians lack of desire to prosecute her or Comey's desire to keep his job after she won. You can blab about it all you want but that will not change. 

 

[aubiefifty 16,823]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Well it certainly does not take much to get beyond you.

My statement was that you did not push for Hillary to be punished for breaking the law. She did break the law, whether or not you believe it. Having classified material on an unsecured personal server or device IS a crime, regardless of intent.  If it was you, there would be jail time. I worked with the state department daily for a year while on active duty. They don't do ANYTHING that is unclassified regarding foreign policy. Conde Nast is not the standard. Neither is a group of politicians.  Hillary was one of 38 (according to you) who did commit 91 security violations. One is all it takes. As Sec State she was actually in on ALL of them. Plus she deleted destroyed and bleach bitted 30,000 more emails then hammered all the devices. So yeah there was nothing there.  Hillary stated that she did not have or use a .gov classified protected email system or server as required for her job. So you saying that she was never apprised of ANY State dept business via email during her tenure?  That's laughable.  

The foundation is a different issue also corrupt but more nebulous as far a legality goes. Uranium 1 and all that. Certainly it was above board to sell Russia a bunch of uranium in case they needed to build some nuclear weapons. Well done there.

My statement is the truth.  Hillary DID commit crimes of classified material regardless of the body of politicians lack of desire to prosecute her or Comey's desire to keep his job after she won. You can blab about it all you want but that will not change. 

 

since you like to what aboutism go back and read where trump did the same thing. i do not like hillary and did not vote for her tho looking back i wish i did. hell you seem ok with trump and his family doing it so it is not about holding  all accountable but just another attempt to smear the left. so why you giving trump and ivanka and the others that are guilty of the same thing?

[jj3jordan 2,056]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

That is such a Fox point of view circa 2016.  Take the time to read the explanation in this Time piece.  Hillary was never my favorite candidate, but the extent to which the far right has gone to paint her as some kind of criminal that has no concern for this country, was somehow responsible for the death of the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi and was running a corrupt foundation that did nothing but collect money in exchange for influence is downright pathetic.  The Foundation was given the highest rating for transparency by independent charity watch groups (and supported causes all over the globe helping people), Benghazi had nothing to do with her, which she clearly pointed out during a couple of days of hearings in which she made Jim Jordan and company look like fools, and the FBI had no evidence that even showed an actual breach leading to confidential information being shared.  Obama should have pulled a Trump in retrospect and just declassified anything on the system at the Clinton's home, the same home that is protected 24/7 by the secret service and will be until she dies.

https://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/

This is not a Fox point of view. It is my point of view. Has nothing to do with Fox.  I personally know the pilot of the state department aircraft who was on the ground in Tripoli with Glen Daugherty's seal team on it ready to take off at the onset of the Benghazi attack. Everybody was on board with a rescue mission except Hillary who refused to allow them to take off. Eventually they made it to Benghazi by forcefully requesting a Libyan C-130 to fly them there, which they did. Upon arrival the battle soon ended but Glen sadly lost his life. 

On the COMSEC/OPSEC failure consider this. We had a rescue mission run by SEALS to retrieve some civilian aid workers who were being held by Taliban forces. When we executed the mission the hostages had been moved and were not there.  Around the same time we had a drone attack on a command post that resulted in spiking the ball until we found that the dead people inside were not actually taliban but were civilians.  These two failures were largely unexplained UNTIL you consider that by hacking the unsecured unprotected server of the Secretary of State, teenagers all over the globe would have had prior knowledge of both of these missions.  Then it becomes more clear as to why the hostages were moved and taliban were not occupying the command post.

Obviously these two failures occurred years before anyone suspected Trump would run for office so please don't try to make this about Trump.  Sometimes you don't know as much as you know and the news we are being fed is filtered in ways that obscure the truth.