Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Thursday, April 6. 2023Thursday morning linksWhy Some Cancers Shouldn't Be Treated The von Trapps of Harlem - Can ten earnest kids playing Bach become the next Kardashians? The People Reject Climate Fanaticism It’s now clear that heads of state around the world, from the U.S. and Canada to Britain and New Zealand, are working together to censor their political opponents, lie to the public, and crack down on free speech — all in the name of fighting “disinformation,” “extremism,” and “hate.” … Hamline University president to retire in wake of Islamic art controversy Libs Lose It After Twitter Slaps NPR With ‘State-Affiliated Media’ Label Megyn Kelly Joins Women Cheering Bearded Man Who IDed as Woman to Break Weightlifting Record, Mock Trans Athlete Policy Nike Women Picks Trans Activist Dylan Mulvaney to Model New Activewear WPGA Shuts Down Hot Twitter Account After Man Wins Women’s Golf Event Disney vs ‘Don’t Say Gay’ — All the Latest SAN FRANCISCO, RIP? What Has Chicago Done? Randi Weingarten celebrating her Chicago mayoral win CNN Poll Finds 60% Of Americans Support Trump Indictment Even Though They Have No Clue What’s In It Judge Warns Trump To Refrain From Posting On Social Media, Claiming Messages Could Inflame Civil Unrest – Trump Posts Anyway Trump gets the Nixon treatment Trump’s Indictment is Missing a Crime No one is above the law? Gimme a break Guardian: Donald Trump’s prosecution is a triumph Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted. But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate. MSNBC’s Hayes: Lots of People, Including Me, Are ‘Permanently Scarred’ by Trump’s 2016 Victory Why Most Of The World Isn't On Board With The NATO-Russia War Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
"Some cancers shouldn't be treated".
Sure. But.....let's have this discussion after you've been diagnosed. Until then, you can start by proving absence of any association with the insurance industry, because of that whole lack-of-trust-through-experience thingy. Re: WPGA and others. Seems like this was all a big giggle years ago when the gurlz took over the Boy Scouts. The old admonition remains: What goes around comes around.
re Trump’s Indictment is Missing a Crime
I don't think it matters. They hate him so much I think he will be convicted no matter what. From a political perspective, the judge and the DA have everything to gain and nothing to lose from a conviction. They will be regaled as heroes in socialist New York. I hope there is enough rule of law remaining in Amerika that the conviction will be overturned on appeal, but there is no guarantee of that. QUOTE: Trump’s Indictment is Missing a Crime Trump was indicted by a grand jury for multiple violations of Penal Law §175.1, falsifying business records in the first degree. Happy to help. feeblemind: I hope there is enough rule of law remaining in Amerika {sic} that the conviction will be overturned on appeal What conviction? There's only an indictment. Conviction is hardly assured. I didn't say they have convicted Trump, Zach, I said I think they will.
Your side hates Trump so much there can be no other outcome in deep blue New York, in my opinion. While I hope I am wrong, I wouldn't bet on it. So far, you haven’t been very helpful. The indictment claims that Trump falsified business records to conceal a crime but never mentions the crime those alleged falsifications were supposed to conceal. If you could enlighten us with which crime Trump was supposedly hiding, that would be helpful.
feeblemind: I don't think it matters {that the Trump indictment doesn't detail what crime was being covered up}
It doesn't matter because there is a process involved. The defense will presumably move for a Bill of Particulars. At that point the prosecutor will probably have to say what crime or crimes they believe was being covered up (e.g. federal election law, state election law, tax law), though they could make several related allegations to keep their options open. It does matter because, despite your prejudice, most juries work very hard to apply the law to the facts at hand. Juries are given detailed instructions as to what must be proven to find for conviction. Trump is almost certainly guilty of misdemeanor falsification, but without the tie-in to another crime, the statute of limitations will have long since expired. The defense will also presumably move to dismiss the charges entirely before it ever makes it to trial, and, depending on the Bill of Particulars, this is still a possibility. (However, the defense looks like they are planning for a long slog.) The defense knows this Judge was elected by the same people who elected Bragg.
OldCurmudgeon: The defense knows this Judge was elected by the same people who elected Bragg.
The judge's decisions are subject to judicial review.
#3.1.3.1.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-06 14:02
(Reply)
Deflection.
#3.1.3.1.1.1
Zachinoff
on
2023-04-06 20:08
(Reply)
That statement indicates to me that even you don't have faith in this judge.
This Irishman looking in from the outside is astonished at the sheer neck of one portion of your bipartisan political system deploying what can only be politically-motivated, 'trumped-up' charges against the only opposition candidate likely to defeat them. Robert Mugabe would have been proud.
#3.1.3.1.1.2
DeGaulle
on
2023-04-07 03:35
(Reply)
DeGaulle: That statement indicates to me that even you don't have faith in this judge.
Rather, it means there is accountability in the judicial system. If the defense believes a judge's decision is not consistent with law or precedent, the defense can appeal the decision to a higher court, state or federal, depending on the issue. Everything, from the structure of the indictment to the wording of the jury instructions, is subject to review based on centuries of judicial practice. The judicial system is far from perfect, but it doesn't solely depend on any individual judge. DeGaulle: politically-motivated, 'trumped-up' charges If so, the defects in the prosecution should soon become apparent. There are a number of possible avenues to attack the indictment, including statute of limitations and the nature of the underlying crime. We may learn more if the defense moves for a Bill of Particulars.
#3.1.3.1.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-07 07:30
(Reply)
Have you seen the person the jury actually chose to be foreman? For some reason she decided to go on TV for interviews. She looks like she just came out of high school. She was giggling and grinning and clearly making even the MSM talking heads uncomfortable with the fact they had put this ridiculous person on the air. She was positively giddy at the prospect of swearing President Trump in. One can only speculate what the rest of the jury is like if she was their best choice. Worst of all the main task of the foreman is to make sure that all jurors are present and engaged in deliberations and that they understand all facets of the case at issue. Somehow I doubt the legalities are going to be of any concern to her even if she somehow manages to comprehend them.
#3.1.3.1.2
Lord Heathen
on
2023-04-06 14:41
(Reply)
Lord Heathen: Worst of all the main task of the foreman is to make sure that all jurors . . . understand all facets of the case at issue.
That is not a duty of the foreman. Lord Heathen: Have you seen the person the jury actually chose to be foreman? Well, a jury of peers in the United States doesn't mean they will be as cultured and well-educated as a Lord.
#3.1.3.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-06 15:08
(Reply)
"Trump Can't Get A Fair Trial In NYC" - Dershowitz Warns "He'll Probably Be Convicted"
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-cant-get-fair-trial-nyc-dershowitz-warns-hell-probably-be-convicted
#3.1.3.1.2.1.1
feeblemind
on
2023-04-06 20:24
(Reply)
feeblemind: "Trump Can't Get A Fair Trial In NYC"
Trump can move for a change of venue. It's doubtful the argument will convince the court, though. Trump is a well-known figure everywhere. Also, keep in mind that Trump is a native New Yorker, so those are his peers. feeblemind: Dershowitz Warns "He'll Probably Be Convicted" We're not convinced. There are several obstacles to conviction, not least of which is convincing a jury. We may learn more if the defense moves for a Bill of Particulars.
#3.1.3.1.2.1.2
Zachriel
on
2023-04-07 11:35
(Reply)
I'm thinking that Zachriel is a Chinese AI bot.
Hamline University ... PC knows no bounds but fortunately it does catch up with some authoritarians.
NPR can always give up the State funding to become non State affiliated. Weightlifting record ... Mocking the mockers and with class. The Nike women should start dating the men that still order Bud Light. Just imagine if this happened in another country ... Well, the Ukraine is matching us in the dysfunction category. MSNBC's Hayes ... Somebody buy him a pussy hat. 'MSNBC’s Hayes: Lots of People, Including Me, Are ‘Permanently Scarred’ by Trump’s 2016 Victory'
Good. Hopefully they're scarred more in 2024. re SAN FRANCISCO, RIP?
Yes, It sure looks that way. I believe the City could still be turned around but the permanent Dem ruling class can't see past their ideology to enact the reforms that might bring SF back. All they know is to keep doing what they have been and hope for a different result. They have no plans to deal with the homelessness and crime to make SF safer. As future city revenue falls, they plan to raise taxes on the hangers on to try and make up for the declining flows into city coffers. That will only accelerate the downward spiral. I guess they can chalk it all up to "bad luck." I think that a lot of the truly stupid things that the left does are done simply to poke their fingers in the eye of the right. They are happy that Trump was indicted and they are overjoyed at the angst it creates for conservatives and simply do not care that it is intentionally contra-constitutional. This theory is well supported when it comes to the trans movement and you see those on the left welcoming what is essentially child porn and child mutilation simply because the right is so opposed to it. This is why the left drums up division between the voters and why it works. It is political schadenfreude even when the policies and decisions harm the left too the joy of watching the right squirm makes it all worthwhile.
QUOTE: No One Is Above The Law? Give Me A Break QUOTE: Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, is also above the law. . . Comey didn’t recommend charges because, he claimed, the state couldn’t prove Clinton’s intent — even though “gross negligence,” not intent, was the only standard he needed. That is incorrect. The government must prove elements of "scienter and bad faith," per the Supreme Court. See Gorin v. United States. QUOTE: When Hillary’s husband, also above the law, perjured himself under oath It wasn't perjury. The court ruled the testimony was not material, and materiality is required under the perjury statute. See 18 U.S. Code § 1621. However, Clinton was held to account, being found in civil contempt. Z: The government must prove elements of "scienter and bad faith"...
Did the government prove scienter and bad faith with Kristian Saucier? mudbug: Did the government prove scienter and bad faith with Kristian Saucier?
Indeed, they did. The government had evidence that Saucier knew he was taking photographs of classified equipment. Then, Saucier further exhibited his guilt when he tried to destroy the evidence of what he had done. And Clinton didn't know she had classified materials that were then erased with bleachbit?
mudbug: And Clinton didn't know she had classified materials
There was no proof that Clinton knew that classified information was contained in her emails. The evidence indicated that it was typical "leakage," common throughout the government.
#8.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-06 15:01
(Reply)
The IG reported that she had emails classified more "secret" than Top Secret (ie. Special Access Programs - meaning they were Top Secret and that not everybody with Top Secret clearance could view them. If you are the Secretary of State and you can't tell the difference between an unclassified document and a Special Access Program document you are either highly corrupt or very stupid. I find it interesting that you would prefer to deem Clinton stupid.
#8.1.1.1.1.1
mudbug
on
2023-04-06 15:23
(Reply)
mudbug: beyond the “top secret” level
Yes, but none of the classified information was properly marked. It also means that other parties, primarily government service employees, were sending or recieving the same information. Clinton used the secure State intranet extensively for classified information, and there was no motive for her to receive classified information in emails. Again, it has the typical appearance of leakage. mudbug: If you are the Secretary of State and you can't tell the difference between an unclassified document and a Special Access Program document you are either highly corrupt or very stupid. They weren't documents, but information within emails. For instance, discussions of drone strikes in certain foreign countries were considered classified--even though you could read about them in the New York Times. (They were considered classified in order to maintain deniability.) Also, the Trump administration had ample opportunity to investigate Clinton. "Lock her up!" But didn't press charges. There never was a case to be made.
#8.1.1.1.1.2
Zachriel
on
2023-04-06 15:37
(Reply)
I'm not conceding your point that none of the classified information was correctly marked since, we did learn about at least one document had a paragraph marked with "(C)" indicating it contained classified information and she didn't know what the "(C)" meant. (Mark up one for stupid.)
But even in your drone example, she should know that information could be leaked to the NYT that might not be correct. But let's say the NYT was right that time, that doesn't mean it hadn't been classified as sensitive and should have been treated as such. Your picture of Hillary isn't very flattering and I have to admit that she did quite a lot of stupid things (e.g. using her personal Blackberry on foreign trips to places like Vietnam, which was less secure than State Department issued devices). An argument could be made that she was just stupid. But then when she ran your own email server (run by people without any clearance), when you cover your tracks by deleting your files with bleachbit, when you don't relinquish subpoenaed information, and when she really was smart enough to know better there was more going on than just being stupid. As for Trump not prosecuting her, maybe he had the foresight to know that as bad as what she had done was, it was better not to put the country through the spectacle that Bragg is putting the country through now. In any case, it is generally expected that the DOJ operates independently from the President (except when AG Holder was Obama's wingman) and so even if Trump might have wanted to prosecute her, it was up to his AG to do it or not. For better or worse, he chose not.
#8.1.1.1.1.2.1
mudbug
on
2023-04-06 16:47
(Reply)
mudbug: I'm not conceding your point that none of the classified information was correctly marked since, we did learn about at least one document had a paragraph marked with "(C)" indicating it contained classified information
The information was not properly marked as it lacked the necessary headers. The FBI concluded it was a reasonable assumption that the information was no longer classified, or that the notations were overlooked or misunderstood. (By the way, the "(C)" is for confidential, the lowest level of classification.) mudbug: But even in your drone example, she should know that information could be leaked to the NYT that might not be correct. Sure, but there are time elements involved, and the FBI found that career employees were trying to transmit information while trying to avoid making specific references. But classified information will inevitably seep into emails. It's an endemic problem. mudbug: when you cover your tracks by deleting your files with bleachbit BleachBit is freeware. It's widely used. It's not something special. mudbug: when you don't relinquish subpoenaed information Clinton did not destroy the emails at issue. They were supposed to be automatically deleted after 60 days, which is a common policy. The FBI determined that the technician failed to set this up properly and deleted them all at once to hide his mistake. mudbug: As for Trump not prosecuting her, maybe he had the foresight to know that as bad as what she had done was, it was better not to put the country through the spectacle If Clinton broke the law, she should have been held to account. Trump being president means that he appointed the Attorney General and could remove the impediments from the conspiratorial (nonsense) that supposedly suppressed the truth. mudbug: it was up to his AG to do it or not Well, yeah. But he didn't. That's because there was no prosecutable case.
#8.1.1.1.1.2.2
Zachriel
on
2023-04-06 17:14
(Reply)
QUOTE: Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted. But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate. It can certainly happen in democratic countries with strong legal institutions. Clinton, while a sitting president, was hauled into court and forced to testify about intimate details of a sexual relationship, then found in civil contempt for lying. Nicolas Sarkozy, the former French president, was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for corruption. (He is free on appeal.) That is not to say that the powerful do not often skate on illegal behavior. They do. The difference between Sarkozy and Clinton, and Navalny is that the United States and France have an independent judiciary protecting the rights of the accused, while the Russian judiciary works at the whims of Putin and the oligarchy. If leaders cannot be held to account before an independent judiciary when they break the law, then you do not have equality before the law, a foundation of liberty. LSU won the women’s basketball national championship and was invited to the White House. Jill Biden wants to invite Iowa's team that lost. Some on the LSU team have gone full racists because the Iowa team is too white and have said that they will go to Obama's house instead. Ironic and enlightening because indeed Obama instituted and accelerated this angry racist division in America. This is what they want, essentially a race war.
The Takeover of America's Legal System
QUOTE: The adversarial legal system—in which both sides of a dispute are represented vigorously by attorneys with a vested interest in winning—is at the heart of the American constitutional order. Since time immemorial, law schools have tried to prepare their students to take part in that system. Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law. . . . Trial verdicts that do not jibe with the new politics are seen as signs of an inextricable hate—and an illegitimate legal order. https://www.thefp.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system There is a good piece over at westernrifleshooters by MacGregor and the Judge.
from VDH
From Republic to Ruin: The Consequences Of Arresting A U.S. President QUOTE: to put it another way: what crime did Trump not do that others did with either impunity or without being arrested? Here is a sample of 20. 1) Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by destroying federally subpoenaed emails and devices in order to hide evidence. 2) Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by sending classified government communications on her own, through an unsecured home-brewed server. 3) Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by hiring—through three paywalls—a foreign national, who is prohibited from working on presidential campaigns, to compile a dossier to smear her presidential opponent. 4) Trump did not violate federal campaign laws, as did Hillary Clinton, by hiding her payments (as “legal services”) to Christopher Steele through bookkeeping deceptions. 5) Trump did not, as did Bill Clinton, use a crony to search out a high-paying New York job for a paramour in order to influence her testimony before a special counsel. 6) Trump did not, as did Bill Clinton, receive a $500,000 “honorarium” for speaking in Moscow while his wife, our secretary of state, approved a longstanding and lucrative desire of the Kremlin for North American uranium to be sold to a Russian consortium. 7) Trump did not, as did Barack Obama, promise Vladimir Putin that he would be “flexible” on “missile defense” if during his own reelection bid Putin in return would give him “space”. That quid pro quo arrangement led to the U.S. abandonment of key joint missile defense systems with Poland and the Czech Republic, and, reciprocally, less than two years later a Russia invasion, mostly unopposed by the United States, of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. 8) Trump did not boast publicly, as did Joe Biden, that he used U.S. foreign aid monies as leverage to have the Ukrainian government fire a prosecutor who may have been looking into the Biden family’s efforts to sell influence to corrupt Ukrainian interests. 9) Trump did not, as the Bidens did, set up a family consortium to leverage monies from Ukraine, Russia, and China, on their shared expectations that he might soon run for and be elected president and become compromised. Trump is not mentioned, as is Joe Biden, in family business communications as a recipient of a 10 percent commission on such payoffs. 10) Trump did not, unlike Joe Biden, remove presidential papers—without any authority to declassify them—and leave them scattered and unsecured in a garage and various residences and offices. 11) Trump did not, as did the FBI, wipe clean subpoenaed mobile phone records. 12) Trump did not, as did interim FBI head Andrew McCabe, admittedly lie under oath on four occasions to federal investigators. 13) Trump did not, as did CIA Director John Brennan, admittedly lie on two occasions while under oath to the U.S. Congress. 14) Trump did not, as did Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, admittedly lie on one occasion to the U.S. Congress. 15) Trump did not, as did James Comey, claim amnesia or ignorance 245 times while under oath before the U.S. Congress. 16) Trump did not, as did FBI Director James Comey, summarize a confidential private conversation with a president and then deliberately leak that classified memo to the media for his own agenda of appointing a special counsel to investigate the president—which turned out to be his friend Robert Mueller. 17) Trump did not, as did Robert Mueller, claim ignorance while under oath when asked about the Steele dossier and Fusion GPS, the catalysts for Mueller’s own investigation. 18) Trump did not, as did private citizen and former secretary of state John Kerry, meet clandestinely while out of office with Iranian officials to help them resist current U.S. policy toward Iran—or what the Boston Globe characterized as “unusual shadow diplomacy” to “apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside.” 19) Trump did not, as did the FBI and CIA, pay clandestine money to Twitter to monitor and smother news stories deemed unhelpful to their agendas. 20) Trump did not, as did then-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whip up a mob at the doors of the Supreme Court by threatening two sitting justices by name to intimidate them concerning an impending judicial ruling: “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.” https://directorblue.blogspot.com/2023/04/from-republic-to-ruin-consequences-of.html 1) Clinton did not destroy the emails at issue. They were supposed to be automatically deleted after 60 days, which is a a common policy. The technician failed to set this up properly and deleted them all at once to hide his mistake.
2) The government must prove elements of "scienter and bad faith," per the Supreme Court. See Gorin v. United States. There was no provable crime. 3) It is not illegal for a campaign to hire a foreign national. 4) That was a civil violation and resulted in a fine. 5) That was investigated at the time. There was no provable crime. 6) Clinton regularly commanded speaking fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so on. Lord Heathen: And so on?
With a Gish Gallop, we usually just take the first few examples to establish the pattern. Oh, look! "Gish Gallop"!
Zachie poo has a new term! You're trying WAY too hard to sound smart, you fatuous midwit. "1) Clinton did not destroy the emails at issue. They were supposed to be automatically deleted after 60 days, which is a a common policy. The technician failed to set this up properly and deleted them all at once to hide his mistake." Riiiiiight... And by the way, even if what the staffer said about his oops moment is true, two things don't change: The server was unapproved, against policy, and should never have existed, and Clinton and staff knew this. The staffer had his alleged oops moment AFTER the demand from congress to preserve the information had been issued, and he was aware of it. Is there nothing these people do you won't try to justify or excuse?
#13.1.1.1.1
SK
on
2023-04-06 17:33
(Reply)
SK: The server was unapproved, against policy, and should never have existed
Personal emails are sanctioned when other means of communication are not available. Classified information shouldn't ever be transmitted over the internet, even on the official State email system. The Inspector General for the State Department found that Clinton's exclusive reliance on her personal email was not and would not be approved. The Inspector General also found that previous Secretaries also used personal email. Powell, for instance, used AOL. ("You have mail!") But being in violation of policy is not in and of itself a criminal offense. SK: The staffer had his alleged oops moment AFTER the demand from congress to preserve the information had been issued, and he was aware of it. That's right! He broke the law.
#13.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-06 20:00
(Reply)
"...he broke the law!"
Of course he did. When your boss says... "In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to State Department, and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work," Clinton said. "I had no reason to save them" ...and you forget to do it, by golly you jump right on it when the reason she does it--she gets caught playing fast and loose with government info--actually happens. If he had the standing order to clean up the data, she gave it. Now make some more excuses please. There might be a few new folks who think you have a shred of credibility.
#13.1.1.1.1.1.1
SK
on
2023-04-07 09:01
(Reply)
SK: If he had the standing order to clean up the data, she gave it.
The direction was from the attorney's office, which recommended automatic deletion after 60 days, a standard practice in many offices. Any standing order has no legal effect once a subpoena is issued. The tech worker knew this, and knew he was breaking the law on his own volition to cover up his mistake, as he admitted under oath.
#13.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-07 09:12
(Reply)
Outlook even has a handy setting for auto-deletion of emails.
#13.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-07 09:30
(Reply)
Gmail has the option by setting up a filter.
#13.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2
Zachriel
on
2023-04-07 11:25
(Reply)
Once the emails were under a legal order to preserve them, it is a crime to delete them, Zach-- whether or not they "should have" been deleted earlier. Yet he did delete them, pursuant to her orders. Furthermore, it is by no means an ordinary task to BleachBit a hard drive. Normal IT practice would be to move "deleted" emails to a temporary folder for a period of time (usually 30-90 days) to handle cases of "oopsie-- I needed that", and then to "delete" the files by marking the area free for overwrite. The area would be gradually over-written, but a thorough forensic recovery can often much, if not necessarily all, data that has been over-written normally. The sole and only purpose of BleachBit is to prevent forensic recovery of the data, and this was done after the emails were under judicial preservation order. If Trump had done this, you'd be howling like an air-raid siren, and he'd be up on some totally legit charges of destroying evidence.
Janet: Once the emails were under a legal order to preserve them, it is a crime to delete them
That's right! Janet: Yet he did delete them, pursuant to her orders. Yes, he did delete the emails. No, Clinton did not order him to delete the emails after the subpoena came through. He did that on his own volition to cover up his mistake. Janet: Furthermore, it is by no means an ordinary task to BleachBit a hard drive. BleachBit is freeware and easy to use. BleachBit or similar products are commonly used on servers. Janet: The sole and only purpose of BleachBit is to prevent forensic recovery of the data That is incorrect. Wiping unused disk space is a common part of data security. Otherwise, once gaining access, hackers can rifle through vestigial data. 'That is incorrect. Wiping unused disk space is a common part of data security. Otherwise, once gaining access, hackers can rifle through vestigial data.'
Oh, this is adorable! I asked before, is there nothing these people do you won't try to justify or excuse?
#13.1.2.1.1
SK
on
2023-04-07 08:34
(Reply)
SK,
You should also wipe your personal or business computer drive if you are disposing of your old computer. The use of products to wipe hard drives is standard standard. SK: is there nothing these people do you won't try to justify or excuse? If Clinton acted in an unethical manner, it should be brought to light. If she committed a crime, she should be held to account. But making stuff up is not an argument.
#13.1.2.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2023-04-07 09:06
(Reply)
Think what you want about former President Trump and the reasons he’s being indicted. But just imagine if this happened in any other country, where a government arrested the main opposition candidate.
There is an ominous parallel here- the Spanish Civil War- though we have not yet reached the extremities of Spain in 1936. Instead of arresting a leader of the opposition, government police – the Assault Guards- plus some members of the Socialist party- detained and assassinated José Calvo Sotelo, a leader – perhaps the leader- of the opposition in Parliament. At the time, this was alleged to be revenge for the murder of José del Castillo, a Lieutenant of the Assault Guard, which was similarly revenge for the assassination of several rightists. A week after the assassination of Calvo Sotelo, the uprising commenced. The Assassination Of José Calvo Sotelo: Prelude To The Spanish Civil War QUOTE: The assassination of Calvo Sotelo became the detonator of the national insurrection of July 18, 1936. Conspirators had already been at work well before this terrible political crime, and the uprising would likely have taken place regardless of this assassination. But the shock of this event made a decisive contribution towards smoothing out the difficulties and dissipating the doubts of the conspirators. It accelerated the preparations and imposed a definite day and hour. It considerably increased popular sympathy for, and participation in, the plans of the military. Because of this crime, hatched and covered up by the State, it is clear that all the adversaries of the Popular Front felt themselves in danger of being killed. As Gil Robles said in Parliament, “Half of Spain will not agree to being killed.” One of the major observers of the time, Julián Zugazagoitia, a minister of the Popular Front, told one of his visitors, “This attack is war.” From the histories I have read of the Spanish Civil War, the assassination of José Calvo Sotelo was the deciding factor in Franco’s decision to join the uprising. Even lefty historian Paul Preston said so. The narrative we have been fed for nearly a century of the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Popular Front against the FASCIST Right leaves out a number of relevant facts. 1. There appears to have been some fraud in the 1936 elections. See the link. 2. The assassination of José Calvo Sotelo 3. The murder of ~6,800 Roman Catholic clerics. Do you think this might possibly be racist, you know--Black on White? Are we allowed to mention this possibility? What do you think most black men have wanted for years, vis a vis white men?
Another One: Do you think this might possibly be racist, you know--Black on White?
Sure, though some people make a distinction between societal racism and individual bigotry. Nearly everyone has preconceptions of groups of people. However, there is a difference between cries of "Black Power!" and "White Power!" The former is typically the demand of those who have been historically shut out of power for equality, while the latter is typically the demand of those who have historically held power not to give it up. It's not a symmetric relationship in American society. Bidens crimes are bare ass exposed for all to see. We need a DA to have a grand jury indict him. In fact every cabinet member and a lot of left wing judges too. It has just been declared open season on politicians. Indict Hillary! Indict Mayorkas! Buttigieg. Granholm. All of them.
Obama Received $30 Million From CCP Linked Fugitive As Trump Faces Criminal Prosecution
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2023/04/05/obama-received-30-million-from-ccp-linked-fugitive-n2621587 Well... The Tennesse legislature has voted to remove 1 maybe 3 legislators who participated in the insurrection there a few days ago. While I think that might be appropriate since it wasn't a grass roots demonstration covered by the 1st amendment, it was a bought and paid for insurrection intended to disrupt an official and legal function of government. I do fear that it is merely the opening salvo in a long and torturous legal and social disruption for Tennesse. But, if you do stupid things you win stupid prizes.
OneGuy: The Tennesse legislature has voted to remove 1 maybe 3 legislators who participated in the insurrection there a few days ago.
Insurrection? |