4 ms·

Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Considering that you or I would be facing a lengthy term in Leavenworth if we

by douche 10y ago

Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Considering that you or I would be facing a lengthy term in Leavenworth if we did what Clinton or her staffers that haven't taken immunity bids have done. Bribery seems very likely. There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation.

kbenson 10y ago
> Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Was it criminal mishandling? The information I've seen on it is that there were very few (as in less than 5) items that were classified that made it to that address, and they were incorrectly flagged when they were sent to her[1]. > Bribery seems very likely. ... There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Those aren't actions, those are, until shown otherwise, coincidences. To my knowledge, almost every Clinton scandal has been investigated thoroughly, so what, specifically, would you see her held accountable for? > Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation. Possibly, if you believe she's responsible for her husband's sexual proclivities. That's not a stance I support. 1: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-classified-emails-did-hillary-clinton-send-and-receive http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-class...
- douche 10y ago
  Ok, spin it your way. Admittedly, I've already made up my mind as to which is the less disastrous option
  - Frondo 10y ago
    It sounds like you've done the oh-so-human thing of deciding with your gut, and shoring it up with things that support that decision. That's too bad.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Ok, spin it your way. I wasn't trying to spin it my way, I was trying to get clarification from you on why you viewed the same events differently than me. Presumably it's either because we believe differently in the magnitude of the offence, or we have different information on the offense, or we attribute the likelihood of truthfulness differently to different portions of the story, or some combination thereof. I'm interested in where differences like that come about, and so my message wasn't meant entirely to refute your stance, but also to stake my own lightly in the hope that you might engage where you thought I was incorrect and explain why you thought so. > I've already made up my mind as to which is the less disastrous option That's an interesting way to put it, because to me that sounds like a vote for Hillary, unless you think the status quo is disastrous, and I'm not sure what justification would be used for that. I don't think you meant it that way though, so presumably you have a reason to think a Clinton presidency would be disastrous at this point?

by douche 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> Criminal mishandling of classified material seems like it ought to be a big deal. Was it criminal mishandling? The information I've seen on it is that there were very few (as in less than 5) items that were classified that made it to that address, and they were incorrectly flagged when they were sent to her[1]. > Bribery seems very likely. ... There are a number of suspicious bodies that have piled up over the years related to the Clintons. Those aren't actions, those are, until shown otherwise, coincidences. To my knowledge, almost every Clinton scandal has been investigated thoroughly, so what, specifically, would you see her held accountable for? > Her husband was probably involved in more sketchy sexual situations than any other president since JFK. At the least, that should cast a Cosby-esque pall over the whole situation. Possibly, if you believe she's responsible for her husband's sexual proclivities. That's not a stance I support. 1: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-classified-emails-did-hillary-clinton-send-and-receive http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/08/how-many-class...

douche 10y ago
Ok, spin it your way. Admittedly, I've already made up my mind as to which is the less disastrous option
- Frondo 10y ago
  It sounds like you've done the oh-so-human thing of deciding with your gut, and shoring it up with things that support that decision. That's too bad.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Ok, spin it your way. I wasn't trying to spin it my way, I was trying to get clarification from you on why you viewed the same events differently than me. Presumably it's either because we believe differently in the magnitude of the offence, or we have different information on the offense, or we attribute the likelihood of truthfulness differently to different portions of the story, or some combination thereof. I'm interested in where differences like that come about, and so my message wasn't meant entirely to refute your stance, but also to stake my own lightly in the hope that you might engage where you thought I was incorrect and explain why you thought so. > I've already made up my mind as to which is the less disastrous option That's an interesting way to put it, because to me that sounds like a vote for Hillary, unless you think the status quo is disastrous, and I'm not sure what justification would be used for that. I don't think you meant it that way though, so presumably you have a reason to think a Clinton presidency would be disastrous at this point?