"Similar to previous governors, during his time as Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence maintained a state email account and a personal email account. As Governor, Mr. Pence fully complied with Indiana law regarding email use and retention. Government emails involving his state and personal accounts are being archived by the state consistent with Indiana law, and are being managed according to Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act.” I agree with one thing from this article in regards to Hillary. If all of Hillary's emails weren't bleach bit from he server and were actually archived in DC and subject to the FOIA, I would be considerably less staunch on this position.
Our FBI fell into Clinton hysteria much like the rest of America even if the evidence wasn't there. What is it about the Clintons that makes a certain type of person lose their mind and throw reason out the window
Extension of my previous reply. If you were being extremely reckless while driving, accidentally ran me over which in turn killed me, then went home completely erased all blood, brain, etc particles from your vehicle, then didn't say shit about it until you were caught, are you getting off for lack of intent?
Here we go with another strawman. And another terrible analogy. In this case nobody was "run over." They found no evidence that the private servers actually resulted in a security breach nor that they were used to conceal nefarious behavior. A better analogy would be if you were somewhat reckless while doing something, mostly because of ignorance, but nothing bad really happened because of it. I think most rational people would laugh at those making a mountain out of a molehill over that.
As reported, makes Comey look like an idiot, like he got played by Russia. He already looked like shit based on his actions from July-October. Who knows what else there is to the story or details tho. But it's really more evidence to the scope and depth of Russia's interference, which many Repubs continue to deny. It will be the height of irony when these same Repubs point to this as justification for Trump firing Comey, while continuing to deny Russia's role in the election. It's an incompatible argument. It also highlights how high the deck was stacked against Clinton. The fact that she won by +3 million popular and came within 70k votes across 3 states of winning the electoral college, with all the forces aligned against her in the media, US govt, state level voter suppression, and foreign interference is actually amazing.
Nah...extremely reckless was Comey's quote, not mine. He went on to talk about hostile actors and sophisticated adversaries gaining access to information as a result of the email server. I'm pretty sure you're the one with the strawman, not me bro.
Those all carry different levels of intent. Reckless is different than intentional is different than negligent
Feel free to substitute "extremely reckless" into my above. Doesn't change anything. As for the hostile actors part, I'm not surprised you can't read. Comey specifically states that they have no evidence that her email server was hacked. Only that it's "possible," especially when she traveled abroad. He does state that people she talked to had their own private emails hacked. Feel free to try reading again here: Spoiler With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. And again, we are talking about an analogy you gave here. You likened this situation to being extremely reckless and killing someone. So where is the part where she "killed someone?"
Sometimes recklessness (or extreme recklessness) is a sufficiently "bad" mental state to constitute a crime. Sometimes, it isn't. Fortunately, in the federal criminal world, we don't have to guess when it does or doesn't, because the statutes tell us. So the only question is whether James Comey is better at reading laws than those insisting that she committed a crime.
I swear by all that is holy the next time one of you spends several pages arguing with a mental midget I will stab you in the eye with intent
Most articles on urban renaissance are just about the growth of downtowns, etc. Atlanta is less dense overall because the suburbs are growing super fast, but downtown Atlanta is growing substantially as well and is infinitely more thriving and better than when I lived their in 2006-2007. Same with Winston-Salem, NC where I grew up. It went from having a complete ghost town downtown to having a really nice downtown in 15 years. Article is correct technically, but downtowns are growing and thriving almost everywhere regardless of if the metro density is growing or declining.
I remember that night very well. I'll never forget it. For you see, I was the driver. We pulled off of Florida Avenue, onto 3rd St, the streets were quiet except for a lone young man, walking on the sidewalk. Hillary got out of that limo and DWS was like "Hills, what are you doing?" -- and Hillary was like "fuck out the way, bitch, bout to ice this fool myself." And with that she pulled out her weapon of choice, the same gun she used to murder Vincent Foster so many years ago, and put 3 slugs in him.
So far as I can tell, Saul's defense on the subs comment hinges on the fact that the Pacific Ocean is a big place and any enemy would be unlikely to find them. This is a precarious ledge to stand on. How big is big enough? How unlikely do you need a strike against them to be? Eventually, we'll cross Saul's thresholds and the area will be sufficiently small or the threat will be sufficiently high, at which point we'll circle back and all agree it's a dumb decision to reveal any relevant intel to a fucking two-bit dictator just so you can feel better about your micro-chode. You've really got blinders, man. With Trump, you tend to defend the legality of his decisions, regardless of how awful the outcomes could be. With Hillary, you go to the worst possible outcomes of her decisions, regardless of the legality.
I live/lived in both. Thriving is subjective, and its about what you prioritize. Just stop with the anecdotes.
*FBI director/former Deputy Attorney General/Former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Guy doesn't know shit about what is a prosecutable case.
If anything all that fancy book learning makes him less qualified to know what a case is. Signed, MAGA