Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gronieel2 who wrote (976995)	10/31/2016 2:28:40 PM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1576110

What law school did you got to groinhole? LOL!~

To: gronieel2 who wrote (976995)	10/31/2016 3:32:56 PM
From: zax	Respond to of 1576110

Clinton’s critics know she’s guilty, they're just trying to decide what she's guilty of By Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias Oct 31, 2016, 12:10p vox.com The latest Hillary Clinton email revelations arose out of an unrelated investigation into Anthony Weiner’s sexting. The best way to understand this odd hopscotch is through the Prime Directive of Clinton investigations: We know the Clintons are guilty; the only question is what are they guilty of and when will we find the evidence? So somehow an investigation that once upon a time was about a terrorist attack on an American consulate becomes an inquiry into Freedom of Information Act compliance, which shifts into a question about handling of classified material. A probe of sexting by the husband of a woman who works for Clinton morphs into a quest for new emails, and if the emails turn out not to be new at all (which seems likely), it will morph into some new questions about Huma Abedin’s choice of which computers to use to check her email. Clinton has been very thoroughly investigated, and none of the earlier investigations came up with any crimes. So now the Prime Directive compels her adversaries to look under a new rock and likewise compels cable television and many major newspapers to treat the barest hint of the possibility of new evidence that might be damning as a major development. It’s the same drive that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial on the grounds that he had perjured himself to try to cover up an affair that was uncovered in an investigation that was originally supposed to be looking into a years-old Arkansas land deal on which the Clintons had lost money. The Whitewater investigation did not reveal any crimes. So rather than wrap things up and consider the Clintons exonerated, the investigators went looking under other rocks and came up with Monica Lewinsky There are several rules that govern media coverage of the Clintons, but this year the Prime Directive has dominated them all. Network news has devoted more minutes of coverage to Clinton’s emails than to all policy issues combined, even as email investigations have not uncovered any wrongdoing. It’s inexplicable news judgment, unless you simply assume there’s a crime out there. The Clinton email fishing expedition The words “Clinton,” “email,” and “scandal” have been repeated in close succession enough times that it’s understandable that most people believe in the existence of a Hillary Clinton email scandal. The beginning of the story, however, was not emails but rather the deaths of four Americans at the US Consulate in Benghazi. Republicans have launched more than half a dozen investigations into Benghazi, desperately trying (and failing) to uncover evidence of Benghazi-related wrongdoing on the part of Barack Obama, Susan Rice, or Hillary Clinton. In the course of investigating things, investigators seek records, including emails. And it was in the course of seeking emails that it was initially revealed that Clinton was conducting official business via her personal email address rather than a State.gov one. Because the Benghazi investigators assumed Clinton was guilty of something, they naturally assumed that the use of a private server was part of a conspiracy to cover up whatever that is. But this is a crucial point: There is no reason to agree with the Benghazi investigators’ assumption that Clinton was guilty of something. </snip> Read the rest here: vox.com