Do you want an extremely careless president? How about one who’s actions do not rise to the level of even a reasonable person? Well, that’s what you will get if Hillary Clinton is elected!
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) has thoroughly investigated Hillary Clinton’s use of personal, instead of secure State Department, e-mails and servers during her tenure as Secretary of State (“SOS”), according to FBI Director James B. Comey in a press conference this morning. He will provide the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and Secretary Loretta Lynch (his boss) the results of the FBI investigation and his recommendations on potential action.
You can read the full text of Director Comey’s remarks here, and we’ll discuss them below. Or, for those who like lists, here is the short version:
- Hillary Clinton and her colleagues acted in an extremely careless manner in their use and handling of top secret and classified State Department e-mails through a personal server and account.
- Many of her e-mails were classified at the TopSecret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received.
- The FBI found thousands of additional e-mails sent by or to Hillary Clinton, which she did not provide or disclose.
- Any reasonable person should have known that an unclassified system was no place for her State Department electronic conversations.
- Clinton used several different servers and server administrators during her four years at the State Department, as well as numerous mobile devices to send and receive e-mail. Not just one.
- The FBI found that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people Clinton communicated with and that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account” because she used it so often overseas, in territories of sophisticated adversaries.
- In spite of all this, the FBI will recommend that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton because “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
- Even though the FBI recommends no charges against Clinton, that does not mean that charges would not be appropriate against a different person doing the same things.
- While Clinton may not face criminal charges, her actions were extremely careless and beyond what a reasonable person would have considered appropriate.
The results of the FBI investigation are that Hillary Clinton and her colleagues were extremely careless in their electronic communications:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Another finding was that Hillary Clinton and her colleagues did not turn over all of the e-mails she sent and received while serving as SOS, as she has so firmly stated on many occasions:
“The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.”
Okay, so Hillary Clinton used her own e-mail server for State Department e-mails – it was secure in its own right, so (in Hillary Clinton’s own words, very apropos in this setting) – What difference does it make? Why does any of this matter? It is all just about how Clinton sent and received e-mails, right? Wrong! So wrong.
“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.”
But, apparently, in spite of all their hard work and findings, the FBI has determined and recommended that “no charges are appropriate at this time.” As announced by Director Comey:
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
What? The bureau charged with enforcing and investigating violations of federal law is now making decisions for the Department of Justice prosecutors, suggesting that if their interpretation of the facts differs from that of the FBI, the DOJ prosecutors would be “unreasonable.” That is not their decision to make. Ever!
But, alas, Bill Clinton’s secret runway visit with Lynch ensured that she and her department would accept her police department’s (FBI) recommendation, so as to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. (By the way, did you see the news that Clinton is considering retaining Lynch as Attorney General?)
But, lest you think Clinton’s actions are okay and you, too, will avoid any criminal investigation for committing similar criminal acts, take note that Director Comey was very clear that his decision applies only to Hillary Clinton and that others, even in the same circumstances, might not be so lucky:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
What? This finding applies only to Hillary Clinton, candidate for President of the United States. No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her, states Comey, but that sounds as thought that same prosecutor might suddenly become reasonable if prosecuting someone other that Hillary Clinton? Comey says that Hillary is not guilty but you might be. Wow.
So, Hillary Clinton is free to move about the country, seeking your vote for president. Will you give it to her?
FOR ALL OF YOU THINKING OF VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO ELECT AS PRESIDENT A PERSON WHO IS AT MINIMUM EXTREMELY CARELESS AND UNREASONABLE WITH MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY? IS THIS THE PERSON YOU WANT TO ELECT?
A few weeks back, we published an article here demonstrating that when Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, he really is a socialist, seeking to use democratic channels to secure a more socialist society.
Please reread the article. We believe we were very fair and honest.
Some, however, have suggested otherwise. Rather than respond directly to the individuals who have barraged me with questions in the last 3 days, it seems appropriate to answer here. So, below is the answer we are providing. It is written somewhat informally, and very long, but answers the questions posed. What do you think? Are we right, or just totally off-base, as we’ve been accused of being?
Okay, so here’s an answer, somewhat long-winded, that should respond the barrage of questions that have been thrown my way in the last couple days. I’ll try not to offend, hurt feelings or be the jerk you’ve accused me of being. I have pulled from your comments what I believe are all of your questions. I will seek to answer each (although I may answer certain questions more fully in a different writing), and hope to do so without appearing to jump all over the place.
I will try to answer your questions as precisely as possible. Your questions are italicized; my answers follow. At the end, I share a few additional thoughts.
- “You have already proved that Bernie is not a socialist.” You say that I have already contradicted myself by restricting my definition of socialism to “government control of production.” I never said anything of the sort. I stand by what I wrote that prompted this entire discussion. Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. He seeks to own, control or regulate much of our economy, not just a part, and not just to provide limited societal protections. I have never said he wants the government to own everything. In fact, he has stated many times that is not what he seeks. But he does seek ownership in some sectors, regulation in others, and/or control in yet others, or use of additional private funds for public benefit. I only used Bernie’s words, together with those found on the website of the Democratic Socialists of America. So, there is no contradiction. None whatsoever.
- “You see, it seems to me that he is attempting to combine the two (Capitalism and Socialism) in a fashion that would be beneficial and prosperous to our growth as a Society and a Nation.” Everything I wrote about Sanders was based on his grand speech last year at Georgetown University, defining himself as a democratic socialist. Nowhere in his entire speech did he mention any derivative of the word “capitalism.” He is not seeking to combine capitalism and socialism. He is seeking to create a socialist society through democratic channels. What “seems to” you is not what Sanders says. It is funny how so many are putting so much effort into redefining what Sanders “really means.” Why not take him for his word without having to “interpret” his actual meaning? Are you so afraid of democracy and socialism? Or are you afraid it won’t be achieved without disguising it as something else?
- “You seem to disagree with this . . . b/c you think he is secretly a closet socialist who is using words to gain a position so he can secretly convert our economy and government.” Bernie Sanders is not a closet socialist. He is a socialist. He calls himself a democratic socialist, but a socialist is a socialist. He seeks to create an economy based on “fairness” to everyone where everyone shares in the successes of private corporations. He seeks such by using the democratic electoral process to do so. Thus, democratic socialism. Now, you suggest I think he wants to “secretly convert our economy and government.” I think no such thing. There’s no secret about it. In that same Georgetown speech, Sanders said exactly what he wants, and there’s no secret about it. Said Sanders, “[d]emocratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all . . . and that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.” Nothing secret here. His statements about converting our economy and government are overt and open, not secret.
- “So, based on your own beliefs, this belief that having any form of regulation is socialist, then by your own definition, we are already a socialist nation . . . .correct??? Because we are a country that already has ‘regulations.’ I hope you understand that your beliefs are at conflict with one another.” No one ever said that no regulations should exist. Regulations to protect safety, welfare, health, even financial security may be just fine, but socialism seeks, ofttimes through restrictive regulations, to eliminate economic conditions where some feel that others are unfairly better-off because of their financial situation. We can discuss this further at another time.
- “And, somehow you don’t see that. To me, that is . . . . . . scary.” Why? If I’m wrong and just totally crazy, what is it that scares you? You should not fear me at all. You should just discount me as a wacko and continue sharing your beliefs
- “You do understand that there is a strong theory that this situation (which was already bad) got even worse b/c of deregulation?” What situation? We were not talking about situations, but about ideologies. One could also argue in the alternative that “this situation” was created by such restrictive regulations and government intrusion where it does not belong.
- “So, here is the conundrum. You think regulation is socialist though we already have regulations. You think having regulations is bad. You think our current form of economy and or government is bad……yet you propose no solutions.” Apparently you failed to read the article I wrote. I wasn’t talking about solutions. This article was solely for the purpose of demonstrating that when Bernie Sanders says he is a democratic socialist, he really is saying he is a socialist and wants to use the democratic process to further his goals. That’s all. Solutions, we can discuss in more detail and depth later.
- “With that being said, I am sure you still need to assert that Bernie is a socialist and that somehow socialism is all bad. Such a waste of time imo. If you cannot see that we already have socialist policies and practices in our country, then you are really stuck. Anyways……” If this is such a waste of time, why write so much to me about it? I have never denied that many “socialist policies and practices in our country” already exist. I’m just pointing out the fact that what Bernie Sanders (and others, by the way) seeks is a continued path toward more socialist policies and practices. You and others try to pretend that is not what he wants, when he says it over and over and over. And, if the current socialist policies are so successful, why hide from the term?
- “Bernie has advocated for nothing that we haven’t already done in this country successfully. You don’t realize I suppose that the last great republican was very progressive. Teddy Roosevelt would be considered a socialist by you today and would be unqualified to be commander in chief based on his bizarre beliefs about what socialism is or isn’t.” I do realize exactly that, and agree with you about TR. But, there you go again, throwing out the R word. Nowhere do you see me refer to political parties in these writings.
- “So in the past you said that the necessary forms of government are police and firemen. The reason you say that that isn’t socialism is because there is no production involved. Isn’t that the same with health care.” It’s different. I will discuss this at a different time. We’re talking Bernie Sanders and democratic socialism here.
- “Do me a favor when you follow up my question please explain how the Constitution is written that denies Americans socialized medicine.” The argument is that Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, and also to spend that revenue for the general welfare of the nation. To make things simple, that is the rationale for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as held by the Supreme Court back in the 1930s. I don’t agree – how is it for the general welfare of the entire nation to tax everyone and spend on only a few; to deceive future retirees into believing their retirement is safe and secure, while acknowledging there is no real correlation between the collection of taxes (which many falsely believe are contributions to a retirement account) and the payment of money to retirees for their welfare and healthcare? But, it’s been so held. That doesn’t make it right. How, I ask you, is your freedom preserved to become dependent on the government for more and more, including all your healthcare concerns? You are not more free – you are more dependent.
- “Where does the answer lie?” The answer to this question is very complex, and would require more time and room than I have here. But, in short, the answers lie in maintaining the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution, in allowing the free market to work, in not shielding major corporations from liability, in not protecting such corporations in their illegal actions through bailouts, in not subsidizing other corporations, in not using courts to overturn the will of the majority of the nation’s citizens. And on and on. But, there are no answers in further descent into socialist policies. More to come on this.
You disagree with my conclusions, saying I contradict myself and thus am wrong. You are entitled to your opinions and I respect such. I have my opinion, which I base on historical interpretations of the United States Constitution, on how our constitutional republic truly functions and specifically on what Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America say. I have seen many written articles saying that Bernie isn’t really what he says he is. Well, if that’s the case, perhaps he’s a liar, or stupid, and doesn’t deserve your vote. Rather than think that, I’m taking the guy at his word. My article was about Bernie, democratic socialism and socialism. That’s what I’ve addressed here.
You are welcome to disagree with me. That’s your right. You are free to seek change to our form of government, to the Constitution, to societal norms and mores. But, if that’s what you seek, why fear calling your changes what they are? Why hide behind newly-defined terms and phrases? Be proud of what you seek. If you want a pure democracy, which would allow 51% of all voters to regulate and control everything in our nation (including how corporations act}, then stand proud for that desire. That is socialism, pure and simple. Why fear it if it is what is best for this nation?
You know, that same democratic socialism you seek could very well backfire on you. Then, what do you do? Perhaps your 51% votes to take all profits from those terrible pharma corporations you hate; and then the company on the verge of curing cancer has no money to finish its research; and then you get cancer; and then you ask the government to get that cancer cure instead; and then you realize that nothing in the government moves efficiently; and then you die.
Or, let’s say that you get your 51% vote to regulate fossil fuels out of business; then you realize that the batteries in electric cars are not cheap; then you realize that you cannot afford a new car to carry your tools; then you ask the government to subsidize your purchase of a new car; then you realize that the government money for subsidizing electric vehicle purchases actually came from revenues derived from gasoline taxes; then you can’t get your car; then you can’t make money to buy food; then you get hungry; then you die.
Or, perhaps you get your 51% vote to restrict executive salaries to whatever you deem reasonable. Then a different 51% votes to restrict the salaries of everyone, including self-employed inspectors, because they still make more money than most people in the nation. Then, you find yourself with a suddenly-decreased income; then you realize that you cannot afford your house payment; or your medical insurance; then you realize that if you move into your other house in the mountains, that you cannot commute because your electric vehicle loan payments are too high and you spend all your time on the road; then you realize you need the government to help you with food, housing, health, education for your children; then you find yourself fully dependent on government welfare; then you are stuck; then, eventually you die.
You see what happens here? Bernie Sanders wants a pure democracy to further his socialist ideals. There’s no way any of it is good for this nation, for the economy, for me, for you, for our children, for our grandchildren. No way. That’s why I oppose it. I will discuss this in a more detailed manner in the future. For now, our interest is whether there is a difference between socialism and democratic socialism.