OMG! Hillary has a paid army of internet shills!

[Redpath]

1-800-HIRE-A-CROWD
The business of generating fake enthusiasm, from flash mobs to the campaign trail

Donald Trump takes the stage for his Presidential campaign announcement on June 16, 2015. Richard Drew / AP

Donald Trump's presidential campaign announcement last month was widely mocked, not only for the rambling diatribe he used to launch the campaign but for the actors he paid $50 apiece to cheer for it. Journalists responded with a predictable amount of schadenfreude when it was revealed that the Trump campaign hired actors to attend his rally, lighting up Twitter with jokes at Trump’s expense and “You’re Hired!” headlines. The incident was even memorialized with its own coy shout-out by The Simpsons.

The Business of Hiring a Fake Crowd

I doubt he's still paying individuals though. Now he just uses bots.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you know what an email chain is?

Sure do.......yet, you are unable to show Hillary Clinton transmitting classified information in that chain

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

"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."
Comey

Oddly, none were marked as Top Secret, so nobody in the chain seemed to know

Your claim was that she never sent classified material. That is factually false.

Not classified until it is.

And back around full circle.

It was classified - period. That is a fact. She transmitted it. Period. That is a fact. I am sorry that you want to blatantly lie about the facts because they are inconvenient for your position but I am not going to play that game. I have furnished the proof that such is the case after you asked for it (and demanded that I could not do so). Proof that you should have been well aware of (and I am sure that you were) yet STILL blatantly lied about it.

Classified information is classified not because you mark it as so. Simply talking about the classified information makes the conversation classified. There is no 'document' in such a conversation to be marked as it is the information itself that is classified. Should I type out a flight plan for a military transport here on this medium right now I would be transmitting classified information illegally. You are trying to do logical pretzels in order to pretend what happened did not actually happen. It is sad.

 

[LaDexter]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

 

[320 Years of History]

So what law are the prosecutors going after Petty Officer First Class Kristian M. Saucier with?
Sailor Who Mishandled Classified Info Cites Clinton, Seeks Leniency | Military.com
Petty Officer First Class Kristian M. Saucier, 29, will be sentenced Friday for a felony charge of retaining national defense information. He pleaded guilty in May on the charge that he photographed classified workings of the propulsion system of the nuclear powered USS Alexandria.

Prosecutors aren't going after anything. The man pled guilty.

He knowingly violated the law

And she did not know that classified material cannot be handled on unclassified systems? Classified information cannot be sent to people that do not have clearance? Classified information cannot be transmitted through systems that do not have the proper clearance?

Saying that Clinton did not know that she was violating laws governing the transmission and handling of classified materials is like stating she is a complete and utter moron. Clinton is not a moron.

She did not place the material on her server. Others mismarked it and sent it in unclassified emails

There are no instances of Clinton placing classified material on her server or sending it

Red:
That's an unfortunate phrasing. It's going to lead you down a road of having to clarify the last bit. We know that Mrs. Clinton received emails that contained classified information. We do not know that she wrote of or disclosed classified matters in her replies to those emails. We also don't know whether Mrs. Clinton was the initiator of emails such that the information she included in the email was classified. What we do know is that email chains that she sent/received contained classified information.

I realize the subtlety of the distinction I've highlighted above, but that distinction goes directly to one's being able to credibly and convincingly show that she intended to share/discuss classified material using her personal email account. We have no information suggesting she established and used the personal email account for the purpose of discussing classified content. That too is another subtle distinction, but, there again, it's one that matters a lot when evaluating the fit between her actions and the law as it's written.

If you ask me, I think the overwhelming majority of folks' perceptions about Mrs. Clinton and "email-gate" derives from most folks not understanding how those subtleties play into legal theory and practice. And why would they, or how could they, if they aren't formally trained in legal theory and practice? That said, not be so trained, one'd think folks would know that of themselves and refrain from forming an opinion about the congruence or lack thereof, between a person's actions and the law as its written and applied/interpreted. Yet, that's not what people do.

Instead, folks know whatever they know about law and think, therefore, they are as qualified to opine about legal matters. They are not. There's a reason lawyers go to school for three years and then have to practice for eight to ten more years in order to rise to senior positions in the legal field. Yes, with three years of law school and bar exam passed, one is a lawyer, but what that really means is one has the foundation needed to eventually become a good and highly qualified lawyer. It's the same concept in play for a host of professions and trades: medicine, engineering, architecture, business, physics, accounting, teaching, public policymaking, biological science, chemistry, construction, painting, cooking, watchmaking, etc.

 

[320 Years of History]

So what law are the prosecutors going after Petty Officer First Class Kristian M. Saucier with?
Sailor Who Mishandled Classified Info Cites Clinton, Seeks Leniency | Military.com
Petty Officer First Class Kristian M. Saucier, 29, will be sentenced Friday for a felony charge of retaining national defense information. He pleaded guilty in May on the charge that he photographed classified workings of the propulsion system of the nuclear powered USS Alexandria.

Prosecutors aren't going after anything. The man pled guilty.

He knowingly violated the law

And she did not know that classified material cannot be handled on unclassified systems? Classified information cannot be sent to people that do not have clearance? Classified information cannot be transmitted through systems that do not have the proper clearance?

Saying that Clinton did not know that she was violating laws governing the transmission and handling of classified materials is like stating she is a complete and utter moron. Clinton is not a moron.

She did not place the material on her server. Others mismarked it and sent it in unclassified emails

There are no instances of Clinton placing classified material on her server or sending it

Red:
That's an unfortunate phrasing. It's going to lead you down a road of having to clarify the last bit. We know that Mrs. Clinton received emails that contained classified information. We do not know that she wrote of or disclosed classified matters in her replies to those emails. We also don't know whether Mrs. Clinton was the initiator of emails such that the information she included in the email was classified. What we do know is that email chains that she sent/received contained classified information.

I realize the subtlety of the distinction I've highlighted above, but that distinction goes directly to one's being able to credibly and convincingly show that she intended to share/discuss classified material using her personal email account. We have no information suggesting she established and used the personal email account for the purpose of discussing classified content. That too is another subtle distinction, but, there again, it's one that matters a lot when evaluating the fit between her actions and the law as it's written.

If you ask me, I think the overwhelming majority of folks' perceptions about Mrs. Clinton and "email-gate"

derives from most folks not understanding how those subtleties play into legal theory and practice. And why would they, or how could they, if they aren't formally trained in legal theory and practice? That said, not be so trained, one'd think folks would know that of themselves and refrain from forming an opinion about the congruence or lack thereof, between a person's actions and the law as its written and applied/interpreted. Yet, that's not what people do.

Instead, folks know whatever they know about law and think, therefore, they are as qualified to opine about legal matters. They are not. There's a reason lawyers go to school for three years and then have to practice for eight to ten more years in order to rise to senior positions in the legal field. Yes, with three years of law school and bar exam passed, one is a lawyer, but what that really means is one has the foundation needed to eventually become a good and highly qualified lawyer. It's the same concept in play for a host of professions and trades: medicine, engineering, architecture, business, physics, accounting, teaching, public policymaking, biological science, chemistry, construction, painting, cooking, watchmaking, etc.

See, rightwinger, I told you that's what would happen:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

"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."
Comey
​

I got interrupted as I wrote my most recent post above, so it took me some time to actually get it posted. However, no sooner did I post my comments above and read the new posts, there it was.

 

[FA_Q2]

Prosecutors aren't going after anything. The man pled guilty.

He knowingly violated the law

And she did not know that classified material cannot be handled on unclassified systems? Classified information cannot be sent to people that do not have clearance? Classified information cannot be transmitted through systems that do not have the proper clearance?

Saying that Clinton did not know that she was violating laws governing the transmission and handling of classified materials is like stating she is a complete and utter moron. Clinton is not a moron.

She did not place the material on her server. Others mismarked it and sent it in unclassified emails

There are no instances of Clinton placing classified material on her server or sending it

Red:
That's an unfortunate phrasing. It's going to lead you down a road of having to clarify the last bit. We know that Mrs. Clinton received emails that contained classified information. We do not know that she wrote of or disclosed classified matters in her replies to those emails. We also don't know whether Mrs. Clinton was the initiator of emails such that the information she included in the email was classified. What we do know is that email chains that she sent/received contained classified information.

I realize the subtlety of the distinction I've highlighted above, but that distinction goes directly to one's being able to credibly and convincingly show that she intended to share/discuss classified material using her personal email account. We have no information suggesting she established and used the personal email account for the purpose of discussing classified content. That too is another subtle distinction, but, there again, it's one that matters a lot when evaluating the fit between her actions and the law as it's written.

If you ask me, I think the overwhelming majority of folks' perceptions about Mrs. Clinton and "email-gate"

derives from most folks not understanding how those subtleties play into legal theory and practice. And why would they, or how could they, if they aren't formally trained in legal theory and practice? That said, not be so trained, one'd think folks would know that of themselves and refrain from forming an opinion about the congruence or lack thereof, between a person's actions and the law as its written and applied/interpreted. Yet, that's not what people do.

Instead, folks know whatever they know about law and think, therefore, they are as qualified to opine about legal matters. They are not. There's a reason lawyers go to school for three years and then have to practice for eight to ten more years in order to rise to senior positions in the legal field. Yes, with three years of law school and bar exam passed, one is a lawyer, but what that really means is one has the foundation needed to eventually become a good and highly qualified lawyer. It's the same concept in play for a host of professions and trades: medicine, engineering, architecture, business, physics, accounting, teaching, public policymaking, biological science, chemistry, construction, painting, cooking, watchmaking, etc.

See, rightwinger, I told you that's what would happen:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

"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."
Comey
​

I got interrupted as I wrote my most recent post above, so it took me some time to actually get it posted. However, no sooner did I post my comments above and read the new posts, there it was.

What he was contending was that Clinton did not send classified information.

If by "I told you this would happen" you meant that such a falsehood would be challenged then yes it was. It is a fact that Clinton transmitted classified information over an unclassified system.

 

[320 Years of History]

He knowingly violated the law

And she did not know that classified material cannot be handled on unclassified systems? Classified information cannot be sent to people that do not have clearance? Classified information cannot be transmitted through systems that do not have the proper clearance?

Saying that Clinton did not know that she was violating laws governing the transmission and handling of classified materials is like stating she is a complete and utter moron. Clinton is not a moron.

She did not place the material on her server. Others mismarked it and sent it in unclassified emails

There are no instances of Clinton placing classified material on her server or sending it

Red:
That's an unfortunate phrasing. It's going to lead you down a road of having to clarify the last bit. We know that Mrs. Clinton received emails that contained classified information. We do not know that she wrote of or disclosed classified matters in her replies to those emails. We also don't know whether Mrs. Clinton was the initiator of emails such that the information she included in the email was classified. What we do know is that email chains that she sent/received contained classified information.

I realize the subtlety of the distinction I've highlighted above, but that distinction goes directly to one's being able to credibly and convincingly show that she intended to share/discuss classified material using her personal email account. We have no information suggesting she established and used the personal email account for the purpose of discussing classified content. That too is another subtle distinction, but, there again, it's one that matters a lot when evaluating the fit between her actions and the law as it's written.

If you ask me, I think the overwhelming majority of folks' perceptions about Mrs. Clinton and "email-gate"

derives from most folks not understanding how those subtleties play into legal theory and practice. And why would they, or how could they, if they aren't formally trained in legal theory and practice? That said, not be so trained, one'd think folks would know that of themselves and refrain from forming an opinion about the congruence or lack thereof, between a person's actions and the law as its written and applied/interpreted. Yet, that's not what people do.

Instead, folks know whatever they know about law and think, therefore, they are as qualified to opine about legal matters. They are not. There's a reason lawyers go to school for three years and then have to practice for eight to ten more years in order to rise to senior positions in the legal field. Yes, with three years of law school and bar exam passed, one is a lawyer, but what that really means is one has the foundation needed to eventually become a good and highly qualified lawyer. It's the same concept in play for a host of professions and trades: medicine, engineering, architecture, business, physics, accounting, teaching, public policymaking, biological science, chemistry, construction, painting, cooking, watchmaking, etc.

See, rightwinger, I told you that's what would happen:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

"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."
Comey
​

I got interrupted as I wrote my most recent post above, so it took me some time to actually get it posted. However, no sooner did I post my comments above and read the new posts, there it was.

What he was contending was that Clinton did not send classified information.

If by "I told you this would happen" you meant that such a falsehood would be challenged then yes it was. It is a fact that Clinton transmitted classified information over an unclassified system.

Red:
Yes, well, we know she did send/receive email chains that had classified content in them and that the messages were sent/received via her personal email server/account. No doubt about that. But then the actus rea component of the matter hasn't been in question since Dir. Comey made his announcement earlier this year. Thus, if one is going to raise her emails as part of a discussion, one cannot credibly say she didn't send/receive classified content via her server. One can drill down to a level of detail that goes to intent, but at the level of the act of sending/receiving classified information itself, she did it. Period.

 

[ChrisL]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

He should get a raise. Lol.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[rightwinger]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

He should get a raise. Lol.

That is a lie

I am still getting paid by Obama. I cannot sign with Hillary until my Obama contract is completed

 

[owebo]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

John Harwood ✔ @JohnJHarwood
final NBC/WSJ pre-election poll: women/college/non-whites/young/urban for Clinton overpowering men/non-college/whites/older/rural for Trump

9:05 AM - 6 Nov 2016

 

[ChrisL]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

He should get a raise. Lol.

That is a lie

I am still getting paid by Obama. I cannot sign with Hillary until my Obama contract is completed

You should demand a raise before you start shilling for the hag.

 

[rightwinger]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

He should get a raise. Lol.

That is a lie

I am still getting paid by Obama. I cannot sign with Hillary until my Obama contract is completed

You should demand a raise before you start shilling for the hag.

From what I hear, Hillary offers her messageboard posters a good contract that even includes dental and six weeks paid vacation

 

[ChrisL]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

He should get a raise. Lol.

That is a lie

I am still getting paid by Obama. I cannot sign with Hillary until my Obama contract is completed

You should demand a raise before you start shilling for the hag.

From what I hear, Hillary offers her messageboard posters a good contract that even includes dental and six weeks paid vacation

Please, we all know it's a minimum wage part time job. That's what demos have done to our "jobs."

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

11.6.2016 - 10:30 AM EDT
You Want Numbers? I Got Numbers


New national polls:

WSJ/NBC News: +4

Washington Post/ABC: Clinton +5

Read More →
- David Kurtz

 

[rightwinger]

rightwinger = Hillary Shill

He should get a raise. Lol.

That is a lie

I am still getting paid by Obama. I cannot sign with Hillary until my Obama contract is completed

You should demand a raise before you start shilling for the hag.

From what I hear, Hillary offers her messageboard posters a good contract that even includes dental and six weeks paid vacation

Please, we all know it's a minimum wage part time job. That's what demos have done to our "jobs."

From what I hear from the messageboard posters Union, Trump offered $10 a post, 40 lbs of Trump steaks and three complimentary rounds on any Trump golf course. Of course he stiffed em and said....SUE ME!

 

[louie888]

From a paid army of shills to crickets... who wouldda thunk it?

 

[FA_Q2]

11.6.2016 - 10:30 AM EDT
You Want Numbers? I Got Numbers


New national polls:

WSJ/NBC News: +4

Washington Post/ABC: Clinton +5

Read More →
- David Kurtz

Can help but laugh at this post after the election results.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Can help but laugh at this post after the election results.

CNN analyst Van Jones gave a moving explanation of the pain and fear that many Americans feel as Donald Trump appeared to be on the verge of being elected the nation’s next president.

Jones called a Trump victory a “nightmare” and said it would be difficult for many parents to explain to their kids how a man who regularly insults and belittles others was the president-elect.

“People have talked about a miracle ― I’m hearing about a nightmare,” Jones said on CNN. “It’s hard to be a parent tonight for a lot of us. You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bully.’ You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bigot.’ You tell your kids, ‘Do your homework and be prepared.’ Then you have this outcome, and you have people putting children to bed tonight and they’re afraid of breakfast.

“They’re afraid of, ‘How do I explain this to my children?’ I have Muslim friends who are texting me tonight saying, ‘Should I leave the country?’ I have families of immigrants that are terrified tonight.”