[ExI] Wise Donald Trump

Fri Jun 3 18:54:16 UTC 2016

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
…

>> She broke laws.  That non-disclosure agreement she signed going in puts the signer at legal liability. 

>…Violating a non-disclosure agreement is a civil wrong not a criminal offence…

John, I am assuming you are aware or could be aware, that a non-disclosure agreement signed for a security briefing is not the same thing as a non-disclosure agreement you sign when you are subcontracting to a commercial company.  That NDA with a security clearance attached damn sure does have criminal liability attached to it, something they remind you of every time you log on to your secure account.  On the bright side, I don’t recall them ever saying it had civil court liability if you mishandle classified info.

>>… Stand by for FBI report.

>…I am, and I'm looking forward to my $10...

Heh.  So confident, so bold.  Dashing, is this young man!

>…And Hillary didn't conduct ALL state department business on a private Email server either…

John, she didn’t even activate her secure server account.  There was no legal electronic communication path to the US SecState for her entire term.  Astonishing.

> John if you can prove that, we can net two additional bad guys, Powell and Rice.

>…Then I guess we're going to have a triple hanging, Powell, Rice, and Hillary…

Woohooo! Excellent!  We catch all three sleazebags in one investigation.  Score!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/

> 

>

… Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? 

> 

These are your words John.  

>…No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:

I didn’t see anything in there about fun.  Did you?

>…Spike, after fascist barbarism like that why are we still talking about 

Hillary's stupid Emails and not about civilization descending back into the middle ages?  

I am talking about that.  This is why I favor Johnson.  He is less likely to start a nuclear war than Trump or Clinton.  It is the reason why I won’t vote for them.  I would have myself to partially blame if I voted for whichever one wins.  Don’t do it friends.  Hear the footsteps.

>>…Subpoena?  What subpoena? 

>

This subpoena:

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf

>…OK, you're right, there was a subpoena. It asked for all documents related to Benghazi and or Libya for 2011 and 2012 and she did so…

How do we know that?  We don’t.  We don’t know what was on Nixon’s 18 minutes of tape either.

Destroying evidence is taking on the burden of proof of one’s own innocence.  It can be a very heavy burden indeed.

>>…  So why did she erase the 30,000?

>…Because they did not involve Benghazi or Libya in 2011 or 2012 and were personal…

We don’t know that, and we suspect it is false.  When Mrs. Clinton arranged to have her own server, so that she could control that evidence, she took on a heavy burden of proof, as did Nixon when he erased that 18 minutes of audio.  When people destroy evidence, they appear guilty.  She appears to perhaps have done something serious, such as perhaps arranged to arm Syrian rebels, perhaps in exchange for anonymous donations to a charity, which would have led directly to… well, let’s see… 

…a well-armed military-trained group becoming upset at an internet video they never actually heard of, coming to shoot up the a US Embassy?  Or perhaps they were just some guys out for a walk (with guided mortars and the training to aim them.)  What difference at this point does it make?  Difference: if we don’t know what caused that, then we cannot fix it.  If we do not know why Ambassador Stevens did not have a ventilated safe-room, then we cannot explain why he perished.  Mrs. Clinton appears to have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure we keep not knowing what caused that attack, and why Ambassador Stevens did not have the requisite safe-facilities.

>…. She erased them when she knew the subpoena was coming but before she actually got it…  John K Clark

Why John, WHY WHY WHY did she do that?  She knew what that would look like, she knew she had a bunch of people who had committed felonies by somehow getting classified info across the gap (how the hell did they do that/), doing something which damn sure is treason, people who may have acted on her orders or on her behalf.  So why why why did she erase even a word of it, erase even a word of the evidence needed to exonerate her and her staff, when she KNEW where it would lead?  What was in there which was worth having staffers sent to prison and all the other easily foreseeable consequences?  Yoga?  Wedding plans?  Love notes?  Think about it, John, why did Nixon and Clinton go to such extraordinary lengths?

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160603/885e9160/attachment.html>