Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Of course you do, because you are a leftist. You're no more interested in the truth than far right conservatives who were just looking for any possible excuse to attack her. But the truth is far more in the middle, and even more important than that is the perspective people will have on the truth. Whether you want to admit it or not, the vast majority of Americans view Clinton as untrustworthy. This feeds into that narrative. I'm talking political reality. You can talk about conspiracies and witch hunts. Trump can talk about rigged systems. The sad political reality for you is that you lose that debate with everyone who isn't a lefist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Well, it is now official: Liberty is dead.

Rich and corrupt elite hags with friends in high places can break laws with impunity. The laws change from day to day and hour to hour, so that whether you are punished or vindicated does not depend on what you do, but who you know.

Rule of Law is over, killed by the Left. Now the government is a power struggle between savage and bloodthirsty, enemy factions, each who will stop at nothing in clawing for power, and none of whom has any worldly reason to trust any truce, seek any reconciliation, or favor any peace.

The Executive cannot correct this corruption, as it is its source; the Legislative branch has forsworn the practice of legislation, and merely signs bills no one reads, passes budgets no one budgets, and holds hearings which have no point, purpose, or effect; the Judiciary have usurped powers far in excess of their lawful powers, without any check or complaint. The Press, once the watchdogs of liberty, are actively, fanatically and with unholy monomania conniving to destroy our liberties and aid and abet enemy action against us, no matter the cost to themselves, no matter the loss to their credibility.

You fools. You damnable fools.

You had the greatest republic and the finest form of government in the history of life on Earth, the most bountiful land, the most just and self-disciplined of people, the freest press, the most abundant wealth, the greatest advancement in law, technology, medicine … and you threw it all into the sewer with a curse, and got nothing in return.

May God have mercy on this wretched nation.

But the entire Nation has lost something essential. The majority’s embrace of a jurisprudence of rights-specific exceptions and balancing tests is ‘a regrettable concession of defeat—an acknowledgement that we have passed the point where ‘law,’ properly speaking, has any further application.’

edwardmurphy wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Far from being over, this is going to play into to "Crooked Hillary"/"System-is-rigged" mantra. Watch for leaks from the intelligence community over this. This is going to infuriate people as they come to see this as yet another way how Clinton is above the rules.

I'm seeing yet another Republican witch hunt come up witchless, just like in the endless Vince Foster and Benghazi investigations. The Clintons are no more or less crooked than anyone in Washington, but they're a good deal more prominent than most. That's all this was.

James Comey's Transcript on investigation of HRC

....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.

....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.

Comment: please note also that earlier in the report Coomey read...

....It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

....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.

Comment: Really? Now read what Coomey also said which is a clear contradiction of the underlined statement and now add hostile foreign actors...

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

....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.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

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.

Comment: near the bottom of transcript it reads

....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.

Coomey wrote:....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.

edwardmurphy wrote:Yes, because everything left of the extreme right is exactly the same.

Jac3510 wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:Yes, because everything left of the extreme right is exactly the same.

Yes, because everything a leftist disagrees with is obviously the extreme right.

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, and all related -ist's and -obe's. That's the beauty of being a leftist. Not only are you intellectually superior to all the knuckle draggers, you are morally superior, too. If stupid conservatives would only realize how evil they are and how just and righteous the leftists are, then the world would be such a better place!

ed the leftist wrote:
Rick, you deny climate change despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I don't dismiss everything that you say because of it.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Yes, and all related -ist's and -obe's. That's the beauty of being a leftist. Not only are you intellectually superior to all the knuckle draggers, you are morally superior, too. If stupid conservatives would only realize how evil they are and how just and righteous the leftists are, then the world would be such a better place!

You know what? [love you]. I'm sick of being labeled a leftist. It's insulting and dismissive. The implication is that everything that I say can be discounted because I'm a member of the category you stuck me in. That's BS.

Jac, last I looked you were a YEC. I happen to find that position laughably absurd, but you'll notice that I've never once discounted your arguments as "creatard" gibberish.

Rick, you deny climate change despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I don't dismiss everything that you say because of it.

B.W., you're nuts, but I still read your posts, and as often as not I give detailed, thoughtful responses.

ACB, well, whatever.

The point here is that I respond to the ideas presented by individuals and even when I'm caustic and dismissive I do my damndest to enure that I'm also specific. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.