Going to share some scenic pics of where I live. I think when you’re closer to this than endless views of concrete, you get a lot different perspective on life. Whether mankind makes it or not, this beauty will continue on with or without us. It’s just great that at this point in time, something appreciates it. This is bigger than us, and it’s more inspiring than anything we’ll ever make.
Wow. Just wow.
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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
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.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Let me see if I can help.
She tells you the intent. Her argument, “convenience”. She didn’t want to have a separate phone. That’s who wants to be President of the United States of America. Someone who doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying a separate phone and is more than willing to disregard federal law in order to do it.
Some would argue that a lawyer, having got her break prosecuting Richard M. Nixon:
Would have a greater appreciation for obstructing federal law regarding personal communications.
Or, one could assume she’s not that stupid, as I do. And, recognized that is she used a single device for communications, and it was on a federal server, ALL of her communications would have been subject to Freedom of Information Act laws. However, if they were on her own private server, they in theory, would not. I don’t think she was the least bit concerned with her communications regarding her official business being accessed. But, her private emails might have presented a real problem.
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Timesinvestigation released Tuesday.
That’s the kind of stuff Hillary definitely would not want subjected to FoIA if she was peddling influence in her official capacity for her own personal gain.
James Comey doesn’t even want to think about that. Actually, I’m sure he did. He answers directly to Loretta Lynch, who got her big break in 1999, being appointed as a US Attorney, by, you guessed it I’m sure, Bill Clinton.
No conflict there.
So, Comey did all he could do. He said she’s guilty as hell, but he can’t prosecute her. Loretta Lynch has already said she will only do what Comey tells her to do.
The fix was already in.
Later the same day, Hillary and Obama were more than happy to violate even more federal campaign laws:
Who pays for Obama and Air Force One to campaign for Hillary?
I’m guessing you did, whether you want to or not.
Taking bids now on whether Comey pursues this or not:
Another stupid meme that won’t go away.
This ain’t Jesus.
For that matter, it’s not even Obi Won Kenobi.
It’s Ewan McGregor. An actor. He’s not even pretending to be Jesus.
And just a heads up. Jesus wasn’t Scottish.
Some people got it. Some people very obviously didn’t. If you’re going to try to shame people into posting pics of Jesus on their “wall”, at least get a real pic of Jesus.
Memes are the lowest common denominator on the internet. Seriously. If you’ve got something really stupid to say, take a pic, stick the stupid on it, and it immediately spreads all over the internet by people who won’t put any more effort to check the stupid than clicking on the share button. Seriously. I hate memes. If you have something to say, say it. Own it. Let people all over the world share your wisdom by quoting you. Memes are almost always anonymous. They want it to be that way. Because, if they weren’t, we’d all know who to blame for that particular stupid thing. I’m going to have a thread on here featuring stupid memes. I might actually put a good one or two on here occasionally just to throw people off. But, there’s not too many of those. So. Here goes, Stupid Meme #1. It keeps circulating. Since I know exactly what it is, and I know lots of veterans, and I know lots of people who think they are supporting veterans.
But, this meme is not about veterans. Those are actors. Very, very, popular actors. That’s Robert Downey Jr, Ben Stiller, and Jack Black, among others. It’s not like the people spreading this meme had no chance to have a clue. Robert is Iron Man for crying out loud. This, is a still from Tropic Thunder. It’s a movie about making a movie. It’s not a tribute to soldiers, does not feature real soldiers, and was never meant to make anything look good. It’s a movie that offends every sensibility a normal person has. And, it’s one of my top ten all-time favorite movies ever made. If you’re going to tribute Vietnam veterans, get a picture of real Vietnam veterans. There’s plenty out there and God knows they deserve it. Otherwise:
Some guy on Facebook immediately after the Pulse Shooting, posted a statistic claiming to be the Top 25 mass shootings in US history. Some would argue some historical events would merit consideration to trump what’s happening lately. But, he’s making a point. His point is that assault rifles were banned from 1994-2004. Ergo, the explosion in mass shootings. Nevermind the fact that what happened this weekend would not have been prevented by the assault rifles’ ban because the AR-15 is not an assault rifle.
But, that led to another point that I think is kind of telling. Here’s his chart:
I modified it just a little to hi-lite the obvious:
|Virginia Tech||2007||GW Bush||33||23|
|Lutty’s Massacre||1991||GHW Bush||24||20|
|Columbine High School||1999||Clinton||15||24|
|US Postal Service||1986||Reagan||15||6|
|Washington Navy Yard||2013||Obama||12||8|
|Red Lake||2005||GW Bush||10||5|
|Atlanta Day Trading||1999||Clinton||9||13|
|Standard Gravure||1989||GHW Bush||9||12|
|101 California Street||1993||Clinton||9||6|
|Westroads Mall||2007||GW Bush||9||4|
|Carthage Nursing Home||2009||Obama||8||3|
I can make this even simpler:
President Dead and wounded
According to this guy, nearly 50% of all of the murders and injuries caused during mass shootings occurred under Obama’s watch. So far, he’s tripled the total of his closest rival.
But, this guy, and a lot like him, are blaming it on the gun.
Maybe, just maybe, a big part of the problem is the fact that when this started happening, Obama intentionally looked the other way when they started yelling “allah akbar”? The Boston Marathon attack wasn’t guns of any sort. The World Trade Towers weren’t guns of any sort. When a person’s sole intent is to harm as many innocent and unsuspecting people as possible, guns are not necessary. A little more convenient maybe, but not necessary. You can add all the mass shooting deaths in the last 20 years in the US and they won’t even come close to the total killed by airplanes. Again, it’s not the tool, it’s the intent. Until Obama, or the next President, addresses the intent, this will continue.
Hillary Clinton thinks that people on the terror watch list should not be allowed to have guns. Newsflash for Hillary and her supporters, terrorists don’t obey laws. They use those laws to enhance their kills. They attack gun-free zones intentionally. Less resistance, more bodies. So, her plan is stupid. It can be modified slightly and could serve a use tho. Very simply, if you’re on the terrorist list, and you’re too dangerous to fly, you get sent back to where you came from. If you’re a natural born US citizen, and have colluded with ISIS or other enemies of the state, you’ve committed treason and should be in prison.
There, problem solved. That would have prevented San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Orlando, and The World Trade Towers.
I’m going to bet Hillary opposes that plan.
We’ve all heard it. People waving Mexican flags and stomping on US flags are claiming it. Black Lives Matter supporters starting fights at Trump rallies are claiming it. A political action group even “studied” it in detail:
They all cite this like it’s in a vacuum that hasn’t existed since, drum roll please, Hitler. However, we really don’t have to go back that far to find the last time a sitting US President called for a ban on immigrants from the Middle East:
That’s right, the peanut farmer banned all immigrants from Iran based on the actions of terrorists. Every single one of them would have been Muslims.
In all the interviews of 1980-1981, Hillary Rodham never called Jimmy Carter a fascist.
Ok, so this happened:
Even IF Draymond didn’t intend to kick Steven Adams in the nuts as hard as he could, I still think he needs to sit out a game.
This, is why. In soccer, if someone is so out of control their body still harms or almost harms another player, it’s a flagrant foul regardless of whether they intended to hurt the other player or not.
In basketball, if someone LOOKS like they are grabbing someone in the act of staking an easy shoot, it’s an intentional, possibly flagrant foul.
In football, if a players hand makes contact with the opponents’ facemask, whether intentional or not, it’s a personal foul that will get them probably fifteen yards in penalties.
In this case, Steven Adams’ nuts had no bearing on the play. Green had already lost the ball and was in the act of trying to recover. I get it that he probably didn’t plan it out in advance to seize upon the opportunity, whenever possible, to kick Adams in the nuts. However, he was so out of control, flailing his legs in such a manner to present an obvious threat to the safety of other players, that the penalty should be the same. If they could prove he intended to do it, then a remarkably stiff ( no pun intended ) penalty should be assessed IN ADDITION to the normal penalty.
No one rioted then.
How many Democrats out there are even willing to ask the question?