SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the where's-a-muckraker-when-you-need-one? dept.
Okay, so, I wasn't going to submit these here because I've really had quite enough of politics for the year but it seems the mainstream media are having an absolute blackout on anything critical of Hillary, to the point of CNN has both coincidentally lost a sitting congressman's satellite feed immediately after mentioning wikileaks and tried to tell their viewers that even reading the wikileaks emails is illegal.
These two videos by Project Veritas Action, apparently with more to come, are the result of a year or so of actual investigative journalism and deserve coverage somewhere though. I don't personally care at all if you like Hillary or not but it's always better to know the truth than to stick your head in the sand, so here they are.
The first part in the series is titled Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies. It basically shows precisely what it says it does. Hidden cameras capture Scott Foval of Americans United for Change not so much admitting as bragging that they have operatives in numerous major cities that are actually trained in how best to incite violence at Trump rallies.
The second part of the series is again aptly titled Mass Voter Fraud. In this video Scott Foval is again captured going into minute detail on how not only go commit mass voter fraud but how to get away with it.
Scott Foval and Robert Creamer (also in the videos) are currently unemployed as a result of these videos. Whether Mrs. Clinton should be as well, that's for you to decide.
(Score: 5, Touché) by goody on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:20PM
Yea, why haven't we heard anything about Hillary's email scandal, or that thing that happened in Libya? What was that called? Ben-something? And her treatment of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct accusers? Why hasn't the media mentioned that at all? And this Clinton Foundation? No one seems to even know it exists!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @12:35PM
Of course it was covered - it's all a big nothingburger [youtube.com], didn't you listen to what the media said? "There's no big deal about Hillary being grossly neglige [youtube.com]^W^W extremely careless in her transmission and storage of known-classified material on her unclassified and wildly insecure personal computing devices."
I saw it on TV, so it's true!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:10PM
The thing about the Clinton email server is that others have been caught doing far worse in the last decade. It's important to note that Clinton herself set up the scheme on the advice of Colin Powell, who had done exactly the same thing and got away with it. Then there's the whole issue with Petraeus willfully sharing classified information with his mistress. It's not hard to see that that's much worse than what Clinton did on legal, moral, and security grounds (a great way to be a spy is to be somebody's mistress). Petraeus was convicted but did no time (which is further evidence that they really don't like to punish the loose-lipped over there).
None of this excuses her conduct, but it reveals something uncomfortable about how we treat misconduct. It was somehow more OK when those guys did it, but not when Clinton did. The reason that the media is done talking about it is that they know this. They know it's a double standard and they don't want to be called sexist.
This is why many (especially here) despise political correctness. It paralyzes us from talking about certain things that need to be talked about. But what's really unfortunate is that it's only an issue because of who she is. There's a contingent out there that wants to make sure she, specifically, can't get away with anything. Most guys in politics don't have to deal with that, and they get away with all kinds of shit we never hear about. And by the way, people outside of politics like Trump get away with it all the time because they haven't spent the last 30 years on record.
So remember the Clinton email server next time a top-ranking general shares classified information inappropriately. Remember the Clinton email server next time a high-ranking government official inevitably does the same thing. Oh, and remember the Clinton email server the next time that a candidate for president invites a hostile foreign government to hack into American government emails stored on an insecure device, which said hostile foreign government proceeds to do, sharing what it feels like sharing to make the other presidential candidate look bad. Because there's more than one candidate in this election who may be backed by a conspiracy to get them elected. And if we start holding everyone else to the same fire normally reserved for Hillary, it won't be a PC problem to hold her accountable for the same things.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:36PM
"If we set up our own email server inside the house of a former President, protected by the Secret Service and a very expensive security system, that should be safe, right?" Come on, you know the administration where you work right now is just as ignorant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @03:48PM
The thing about the Clinton email server is that others have been caught doing far worse in the last decade.
Ok, list them then.
It's important to note that Clinton herself set up the scheme on the advice of Colin Powell, who had done exactly the same thing and got away with it.
False. Powell did not set up a private email server, did not destroy evidence, did not repeatedly propagate classified information on an unauthorized network, and did not successfully evade both FOIA requests and public records laws.
Then there's the whole issue with Petraeus willfully sharing classified information with his mistress. [...] Petraeus was convicted but did no time (which is further evidence that they really don't like to punish the loose-lipped over there).
Which administation decided to let Petraeus off easy again? Just because the Obama administration decides, once again, to protect its higher level bureaucrats and politicians from conviction for their crimes doesn't mean that Clinton shouldn't be facing a trial right now.
Your post demonstrates the absurdity of the Clinton defense. Sure, she committed multiple national security felonies, but so did Powell (even though he didn't) and Patraeus (who only avoided serious jail time because Obama failed to enforce the rule of law). Thus, she shouldn't be tried for those crimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:50PM
Clinton herself set up the scheme on the advice of Colin Powell,
1) He is not running for president. If he does we can bring it up then.
2) She STILL did it. Just because someone else robs liquor stores and then you go do it too on their advice does make you any less culpable.
3) She wants to say 'the russians did it'. Could even be true. However, perhaps all that slimy crap they are doing should not be put in email form? There is one thing I have learned with computers. Do not write it down if you dont want people to find out.
4) It is going to be a wild ride from now on. This sort of politics is going to be tame for what is to come.
So remember the Clinton email server next time a top-ranking general shares classified information inappropriately.
There are hundreds of things I could share with you that previous employees of the gov have done wrong. They still should not get away with it. I am not going to excuse them either. When I heard that wikileaks has GOP stuff. I was not thinking 'oh no' I was think HELL YEAH lets out them too.
Lets face it these people are doing slimy shady things in our name. Then patting us on the head going 'oh you poor soul you have no idea how much I do for you just be a nice dear and vote for me'. That is bullshit. They get to play a virtue signalling game with us. Well *WE* get to play it with them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:06PM
Worse behavior does not excuse illegal behavior.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:25PM
No but it does make a bunch of the Republicans criticizing her hypocrites, and it makes a lot of people who hate her for it hypocrites when they don't hold others to the same standards. For some reason, it only pisses them off that Hillary does it.
I guess that's the result of decades of indoctrination from the right. At every opportunity, for years and years, Republicans have demonized Hillary in hyperbolic fashion, teaching you and others to hate and fear her. They knew she was going for the presidency so they thought they'd protect against it by training the public to hate and fear her. It doesn't matter what's true or false, it doesn't matter whether or not she's better or worse than any other candidate, they knew if they repeated the message "Hillary is the Devil" enough, you'd believe it.
And you fell for it. You've been manipulated as much as the people you feel superior to because of your "enlightened" opinions.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:18PM
Obviously, you are not listening to those people who do not support Hillary.
Let me lay out my own position in this election one more time:
We have a choice between the Court Fool, and the Evil Witch. I would rather have the Court Fool hurt me out of sheer stupidity, rather than have the evil witch hurting me for her own pleasure. Ignorance versus evil intent. I would counsel you to vote either Johnson or Stein. If you MUST vote one of the two big parties, then vote for Trump.
Like millions of other voters, I don't support Trump, but I do see him as the lesser evil. But, I don't intend to vote for that lesser evil - I'm going to vote for Jill Stein. I don't "like" her a whole lot, but she is better qualified than either of the freaks who are constantly in the news.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @07:46PM
I understand their point of view. What you are doing is purposely misinterpreting what I'm saying because you like to feel persecuted. I never said Hillary was great, good, or even OK. What I did say is that Republicans have run a decades-long fear campaign against her, indoctrinating anyone who would listen into the "cult of anti-Hillary."
There are definitely problems with her that need to be addressed, but wouldn't you rather they be discussed rationally? You're even spouting hyperbolic "evil witch" nonsense in your reply. In your brain, you've voluntarily turned off all possible avenues of a reasonable discussion. It's all emotion-driven gut reactions based on hearing the message of "Hillary is evil" over and over again. Hearing a message over and over again affects you whether you admit it or not. If someone had an orchestrated campaign to be called a pedophile over and over again, with no real evidence to back it up and then categorically refuted over and over again, you'd better believe a big portion of the people who hear that message are going to spit on that guy in the street. Even people who *know* the allegations were outright lies are going to feel uncomfortable sitting next to him on the bus.
Can you honestly tell me that you think hyperbolic fear-mongering is actually good for the country? Or maybe it's OK but ONLY when it's against someone you don't like, maybe it's OK because it's just an emergency state. Maybe you're so confident that people are suddenly going to start using their higher brain functions once the evil witch is gone. It doesn't work like that. It's a race to the bottom and we're only going to drag ourselves out of it when we wake up, look in the mirror, and become disgusted at how we acted.
I'm just hoping for reasonable discussions not dominated by visceral fear.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by calzone on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:52PM
damn I used up my mod points but parent needs to be a 5
Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @11:06PM
Why do you say that? All I see in the grandparent [soylentnews.org] is "LEAVE HILLARY ALOOOOONE!" uninformed whining. Sure, there has been plenty of mere suspicion that doesn't seem to have enough hard proof to claim Hillary was directly responsible (ala Vince Foster's "double-tap suicide"), but this has indeed changed in recent times.
Notably, Hillary's felony-criminal behavior regarding the handling, transmission, and storage of known-classified data using her wildly insecure private email server (and other unclassified devices). I'd go into more detail about security clearance revokation, but that pretty much goes without saying when it comes to gross negligence [cornell.edu] (synonymous with "extremely careless") of handling classified data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:50PM
If that's honestly what you got out of that post, then you are indeed extremely indoctrinated, exactly like that post talked about.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:12PM
Nice spin. Colin Powell has stated, explicity, that Hillary can't pin that shit on him. AFTER THE FACT of setting up her mail server, Powell told Hillary what he did, and WARNED HER THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL!!!
Try to get your facts straight. Just Google "colin powell can't pin this on me".
None of Hillary's predecessors took that mail server thing as far as she did, and each of them was spanked when their bad deeds were exposed. Hillary's mail server distilled all of the illegal and all of the evil of each of those people you refer to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @09:33AM
She destroyed evidence AFTER a subpoena was issued. That is more than enough. That action gets everybody who is not Hillary put in jail. All this other stuff trying to claim all she did was such and such and how it's less than other people who got whatever punishment is spin, disorientation, and misdirection. Don't engage in that, I know you're better than that!
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Friday October 21 2016, @08:26PM
When you delete 18 minutes of tape its a felony, when you delete 33,000 its a statistic
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @02:13PM
Benghazi was SUCH a big deal, that Republicans investigated her over and over again and couldn't find ANYTHING to pin on her! WOW! That's HUGE! Even the Republicans are in on the conspiracy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20 2016, @04:15PM
It's a big club - and you ain't in it [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 20 2016, @05:29PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 20 2016, @06:20PM
Yeah - remember the wench developed a convenient blood clot in her brain to explain why she couldn't remember stuff. Her plausible deniability was wearing thin, so she had a blood clot. Wow.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 20 2016, @09:07PM
Podesta emails have them outright saying remove the classification markings so that blah can be faxed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.