WSJ: Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified

[EdwardBernays]

Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158

Yes, it's all old news in many respects, but it's the WSJ, which is NOT Fox News. It was written by a former Attorney General, who is a Republican, but he's was suggested by Chuck Schumer, to Bush, as a possible Supreme Court nominee.

At any rate, the fact that a former US Attorney General is writing in the WSJ that Clinton should be criminally charged is pretty shocking.

[Human101948]

9. Fox News with a slight gloss of respectability...

Most of the readers are Fox Newsers with a feral instinct for gathering money.

[workinclasszero]

54. Isn't it nice to see posters on DU carrying water for

the RNC, fox news and the WSJ?

[underpants]

2. A WSJ Editorial?

That's crazy land.

[Gothmog]

3. One of the worse and most partisan GOP AGs does not like the Democratic frontrunner

I am shock at this

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. You really have a hard-on for this, dont you?

Fox News, Drudge polls, and WSJ editorials. Anything to smear Clinton.

Of course, those that KNOW where your screen name comes from understand COMPLETELY.

[EdwardBernays]

7. lol

give me a break...

Clinton hired a lobbyist that makes money doing PR for Saudi Arabia and weapons manufactures as her campaign chairman.

That's who YOU are in bed with.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. Fox News, Drudge, and WSJ.

That's is what your journal reads. That's what you push here.

The GOP is proud of you!

Call me when you actually PROMOTE your candidate instead of beating down others.

[Proserpina]

11. When you've lost the WSJ, you've lost Wall St.

and all that lovely contribution money....

[Dr Hobbitstein]

13. She never "had" the WSJ.

But thanks for playing.

[EdwardBernays]

25. Hardly.

I know it suits you to lie. Because the truth is not on your side.

But anyone who's read my post for more than a few days knows you're just making stuff up.

And btw. I prioritise America over the Democratic Party.

I also prioritise America over Hillary Clinton.

Hiring someone that makes vast sums of money off of arms dealers and Saudi Arabia as your campaign chairman, while you and your husband make over 100 million on speaking fees is not the resume of someone I think will help people I care about.

[draa]

32. BAM!!! All of this.

Party before Country sound like a Republican ideal to me.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. Fox News before reality

IS a Republican move.

[EdwardBernays]

37. Have you

Proven this to be false?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

38. The onus is upon you,

One cannot prove a negative. You have twice today used right wing sources with zero corroboration to smear Hillary. You need to prove it.

Pro-tip, you can't. All you have are RW lies.

[EdwardBernays]

39. No

Although I find it hilarious that you think people on forums have to prove every story in the national press.

I appreciate that your conspicy theory makes you feel nice and warm, but it's just that... I am not some right-winger. I'm more progressive than a huge percentage of Hillary supporters, people that are falling over each other to get a corporate shill like Hillary elected.

I don't want someone that chooses lobbyists for weapons dealers and war criminals to run her campaign. You do.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

45. So progressive you think hearsay and opinion pieces from

FOX and WSJ are credible?

Keep fucking that chicken.

[EdwardBernays]

48. And you think

Every story in the WSJ is a lie? Or just the ones you wish were.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

49. I don't believe any editorial (ie, OPINION PIECE)

written by a Republican.

You seem to really believe it, though. Figures, as people who get their news from Fox are vastly uninformed.

[EdwardBernays]

50. Here's

Last edited Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

what a speech writer for Both Bushs and a member of Reagan's White Hose said in the WSJ:

"When prominent figures in a party play footsie with peddlers of paranoia, the party suffers an erosion of credibility. While certain corners of a party’s base might be energized by conspiracy theories, the majority of the electorate will be turned off by them. People are generally uneasy about political institutions that give a home to cranks."

http://eppc.org/publications/the-gop-and-the-birther-trap/

So that's a lie? Because he's a Republican?

How many more things like that would you like to see? There's thousands. Not everything that's coming out of every Republican's mouth all the time is a lie.

Believing it is, in fact, makes you like the very people you so distrust: an ideologue.

A (D) next to someone's name doesn't make them trust worthy and an (R) doesn't make them a liar.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

52. Blah blah blah.

You sure love posting things from Republicans on a DEMOCRATIC message board.

[EdwardBernays]

53. You sure

Like pretending that that's all I post.

Again. I know it's hard for you - as an ideologue - to look at things rationally. But if you ever do succeed, it'll make you happier.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

58. I look at everything rationally.

I know that Fox News and WSJ are NOT the places to get news on Democratic candidates if one wants to read something truthful.

I don't listen to the opinions of people who WANT to see Democrats fail.

Pretty sure filtering lies out of my life isn't akin to being an ideologue.

Now, when your ideology consists of a hard-on for Clinton being indicted, then you tend to read and promulgate every bullshit story out there and take it as fact.

[EdwardBernays]

63. That's not rational

Just because someone might want a Democrat to fail doesn't mean they're lying. Presuming the opposite is completely irrational.

In fact you are AGAIN highlighting how much you are exactly like the people you distrust. You automatically dismiss whatever someone says if they want a Democrat or all Democrats to fail. But you know, political parties aren't moral creatures. They lie when they want to lie and cheat when they want to cheat and play wounded when they want to.

You can't see that. You just assume that a member of the opposing party is automatically a liar.

Which is the opposite of rational..

And the funny thing is that you really don't seem to get that. You somehow think your irrational bias is not the same. You're more pure or something. Who knows. One thing is certain: it's irrational.

[Agschmid]

69. Lame alert.

4-3 Hide... Check this out.

[EdwardBernays]

70. As you can tell

From the jury's decision, I was not wrong to alert on the post.

I appreciate you might also want to tell me to! %+@ a chicken, but I'm fairly certain a jury would also agree that that should be hidden.

If you can't express yourself without resorting to that sort of over the top language then expect to have posts deleted.

[Agschmid]

72. ... So did you read the link?

I swear no one reads the links.

If you think that was a personal insult (which you do clearly because you alerted) then you are in the wrong. It's not a personal insult, it just appears that jury had no idea what they were judging.

[EdwardBernays]

73. Just because

Something is a meme doesn't mean it's not an insult.

Lots of memes are used as insults all the time...



And people use memes as a jokey way to be a jerk all over the Internet every single day.

If he wanted to avoid getting his post deleted he should have considered if a jury of his peers would find his meme over the top. He didn't. They did. It got deleted. It was an insult. And a meme.

[Agschmid]

74. So let me get this straight...

Someone posts a meme...

You find it offensive...

Rather than saying that you find it offensive you "anonymously" alert on it...

You win the alert, post gets hidden...

Then (to make a point?) you repeat the same behavior you found offensive and you alerted on up thread...

Got it.

It's only okay if you do it.

I don't find your Fry meme offensive in anyway and I typically enjoy meme's and don't take them all that seriously. Clearly you do.

So again...

Your point seems to be it's only okay if it's you.

Keep it up... Or as some might say...

[EdwardBernays]

75. Sorry

Anonymously?

The fact that you choose to try and make something devious or suspicious by taking a completely anonymous process and slandering by calling it.... Anonymous... Shows how unserious you are about this.

Then you go on and say that you don't find a meme that could be calling someone stupid, offensive. Again that shows how you are unwilling to engage seriously. Calling names is pretty much the quickest way to get a post hidden around here. For good reason.

It's grand you want to fight. Some people always do.

I'm not one of them though.

If you wanna keep having some stupid argument feel free, but I won't be involved.

[Agschmid]

77. Got it.

As long as it you doing the mocking, you don't see a problem with it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

35. Bullshit.

Fox News, Drudge, WSJ. You own it. Keep on trollin', though. With a propagandist's moniker, at that.

Keep pushing RW wet dreams.

[randome]

65. Yes. Let's make America great again!

Where have I heard that before?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

62. that person's candidate is not running the DNC primary, in all likelihood nt

[Mufaddal]

5. WSJ is owned by News Corp

So the whole "not Fox News" thing doesn't hold quite as well. WSJ is now the NY Post but for people with at least a high school reading level. I'm not saying the emails thing is a case of "that dog won't hunt," but until and unless actually charges of some kind are brought, it strikes me as a weak issue.

[louis-t]

6. It is the WSJ's opinion that Clinton should be charged?

I'm sure she's shaking in her boots.

[Jarqui]

10. If this is true: FOX:EXCLUSIVE: Clinton email exposed intel from human spying

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/22/exclusive-at-least-one-clinton-email-had-most-sensitive-designation-exposing-that-it-had-human-intelligence-source-reporting.html

Hillary might have a real problem.

The difficulty is the media outlets who are making these claims

[bigdarryl]

12. And just what would be the criminal charge

[daybranch]

19. intentional mishandling of highly classified documents

failure to follow security regulations as required by law, disclosure of classified information to those without security clearances or need to know etc., etc., ,

[Vinca]

14. If Hillary is the nominee, this will be what sinks her whether she's guilty or not.

You can bet the Benghazi committee (aka lynch mob) will demand her prosecution . . . over and over and over again. The GOP has a way of making fiction into truth, as they did with John Kerry, and Hillary will probably lose the White House.

[draa]

33. Her supporters will never believe that.

I've had some claim there's no investigation at all. I also think Bernie needs to be more proactive on this. More people need to know because she won't win the White House while under Federal indictment because the GOP would hammer her daily over it. We need a clean nominee.

[questionseverything]

76. the amazing part to me is

that hc can have this hanging over her head and the party is pretending it isn't there

generally any investigation of illegal doings results in less support from the party, for the good of the party

but now our rallying cry seems to be, not indicted yet!

[Orangepeel]

15. The WSJ opinion page is worse than fox news

[Paladin]

17. Threads like this one won't be forgotten, after Hillary is in the White House. (nt)

[Divernan]

20. Are you saying DU will turn over personal information on posters to Clinton?

Cause that's how it reads to me.

[TekGryphon]

27. No, I think his point is that after spending a year...

... tearing down the Democratic party and the progressive movement all for your pet politician (who, ironically enough, told you EXPLICITLY not to engage in hateful and partisan identity politics), that absolutely no one is going to care what you say or think in the years to come.

[Fawke Em]

55. But she'll never be president, so that point is moot. eom

[closeupready]

21. lol ... here we go. I have to remind myself, DU thinks it is REALITY, and

not - repeat, NOT - an internet message board.

[Fairgo]

30. Veiled threat?

I hope not. Please elaborate.

[FlatBaroque]

56. Quite true; that's how she operates, enemies lists and such.

How Nixonian. But then again she loves Henry Kissinger so she must love her some tricky dick as well.

[MeNMyVolt]

18. An article from Bush's AG. Thanks for bringing that here.

[Z_California]

22. WSJ owned by Murdoch isn't it?

I'm a Bernie supporter but don't welcome RW propaganda on DU. If there is something to this story it will come out through legitimate sources or an actual indictment. Until then let's debate known issues.

[JTFrog]

23. A Republican contrived conspiracy about Clinton? Call Congress right fucking NOW!11!!!!

Series! This is Hugh!@!!!111!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. Bernie's a commie and doesn't know how the SCOTUS works!

Does anyone else see someone trying to bury Ms. Hillary W. Bush's FBI problems that are bubbling up to the surface?

She's going to be indicted!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Still In Wisconsin]

26. Incoming! n/t

[hrmjustin]

28. Why do you post right wing masturbatory fantasies on DU?

I find it a complete turn off.

[JoePhilly]

31. Some of these folks ...

... need a new spank bank.

[Divernan]

42. "masturbatory"??? Wow! You actually went there!

A discussion in the Wall Street Journal by a former United States Attorney General as to the legality of HRC's actions are NOT fantasy. As to your "masturbatory" reference, I suggest throwing that particular term around is going to dredge up some Oval Office memories that you don't want to see discussed on DU. AmIright, Verne? However, since YOU brought up the topic, it's
interesting that you find it "a complete turnoff". It's really considered a healthy, adult, human activity. Here ya go!

As Woody Allen famously said, “Don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with someone I love.” And considering that up to 95 percent of men and 89 to 92 percent of women masturbate, it’s probably safe to say that no one really needs much convincing to keep doing it. But if you’d like a hand giving yourself a hand, here’s something to get you started:

1. Masturbation helps you sleep. That’s because getting handsy with yourself lowers blood pressure and produces endorphins, the chemicals responsible for helping ease stress and increase relaxation.

2. Masturbation relieves cramps. Flying solo during that time of the month increases blood flow to the pelvic area, easing pain. The intensity of orgasm can also help—and it sure beats a hot water bottle.

3. Masturbation prevents prostate cancer. Toxins build up in the urogenital tract, leading to disease—but masturbation flushes those toxins out of the body, making men who ejaculate more than five times a week a third less likely to develop prostate cancer.

4. Masturbation alleviates urinary tract infections. Once you’re tired of drinking all that cranberry juice, turn to the other cure for UTIs: masturbation. It helps flush out old bacteria from the cervix, giving UTI sufferers some much-needed relief.

5. Masturbation might relieve Restless Leg Syndrome symptoms. Researchers estimate that 10 percent of people suffer from RLS, a neurological disorder categorized by a constant urge to move the limbs, often causing leg pain, cramps, tingling, and itching. But there might be help in sight—a letter published in the medical journal Sleep Medicine reported on a patient who used sex and masturbation to relieve symptoms of RLS.

6. Masturbation boosts your immunity. Ejaculation releases the hormone cortisol. It’s a stress hormone, but in small doses, it can help strengthen and maintain your immune system.

7. Masturbation makes sex better. Practice makes perfect, as the saying goes. “Sex therapists strongly recommend that women who have not had an orgasm begin by pleasuring themselves,” according to registered sex therapist Judith Golden. “This puts them in touch with the genital pleasure that they like.”
Makes it sound like you'd be irresponsible NOT to do it!

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/7-surprising-benefits-of-masturbation.html

[geek tragedy]

61. You're correct--this post isn't masturbatory, it's rightwing rat-fucking nt

[JoePhilly]

29. RW water spilled in aisle 2 ... bring a big mop!!

Get this nonsense off DU.

[anigbrowl]

34. The WSJ is owned by the same people that own Fox News

Even a passing acquaintance with the paper's columnists, editorials, or comment community make sit extremely obvious that it's a cesspool of right-wing drivel. To think otherwise is the mark of either a liar or a fool.

It's astonishing and sad that people are now using the arguments of George W. Bush's cabinet members to sway the outcome of the Democratic primary. What next? Shell we ask Dick Cheney or W for their opinions? After all they were Vice-President and President respectively, so by your standards that makes them eminently qualified to weigh in on Clinton's suitability for the job.

[nc4bo]

40. HRC folks need to just suck it up and get used to this slop

Because the GOP is not going to hush up, back down or pretend this and other issues doesn't exist or is completely meaningless.

There shall be ads. Lots and lots of ads.

[ViseGrip]

41. It hasn't even started yet!

[geek tragedy]

60. That's no excuse for Bernie supporters to become agents of the rightwing noise machine. nt

[Andy823]

43. Wow

What can I say. I read a poster who compared you to Manny Goldstein in the way your write. Sadly I think he is right, you do remind me of him, and that's not a compliment.

Constant attacks on the "other" candidate instead of actually posting about all the accomplishments Bernie has is not the way to do things, and using right wing owned sources like Fox and WSJ really isn't working for you either. Just saying.

[cheapdate]

44. Good grief! It's an editorial.

By a former Bush official, no less. There is no precedent for criminally charging a former Secretary of State over information handling and it's not likely to start now.

[dsc]

46. the wall street journal editorial page

just when I think the Bernie brigade can go no lower, they go ever lower.

[emulatorloo]

47. "it's the WSJ, which is NOT Fox News." ROFL. BTW, What's Alberto Gonzales take on all this?

Maybe Drudge Report has a link to that.

[Orsino]

51. The WSJ editorial page might as well be a Freeper sub-Reddit.

Try again.

[zappaman]

57. Lol!

[Beacool]

59. So, we now quote former Republican Attorney Generals?

"Michael Bernard Mukasey is a lawyer and former judge who served as the 81st Attorney General of the United States. He was appointed following the resignation of Alberto Gonzales."

Has Gonzales emitted an opinion on this issue?

[Autumn]

64. Well David Brock is quoted now so...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. If I wanted to waste a hide I would comment on this latest calumny.

With all due respect,
DSB

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation of the law.


Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

[dlwickham]

71. The Wall Street Journal is owned by the same company that owns Fox

The Wall Street Journal is owned by the same company that owns Fox