Is It Time For Americans Supporting Hillary's Candidacy To Rethink Their Position?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Yesterday the FBI, following a yearlong investigation of HRC's e-mails and her use of private servers, decided not to refer criminal charges to the DOJ, thus playing into the hands of the Trump campaign's claim that the system is rigged.

Here, in summary, is what FBI Director Comey acknowledged. Edited for clarity.

    1. She did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release.
    2. Her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements.
    3. Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.

The facts, uncovered by the FBI are as follows. Again edited for clarity

    1. The FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret.
    2. Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information.
    3. When his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were "several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000" that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.
    4. Clinton "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account. Clinton also used different servers.
    5. . The FBI did not uncover a breach but made clear that that possibility cannot be ruled out. It is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account
    6. Comey highlighted the perils in routing sensitive information through a home server.

Given the facts uncovered by the FBI's investigation it is difficult to understand exactly why Director Comey arrived at his decision not
to refer criminal charges to the DOJ.  It is however reasonably easy to conclude the decision was very possibly politically motivated, and or made under pressure by those who are politically motivated. Of course that is conjecture, and, as we all know, the strokes will be viewed differently by different folks.

What it is abundantly clear is HRC, a candidate whose credibility and integrity has been under fire for two years, has added fuel to the fire and undoubtedly cased many who may have been leaning her way (I am one) to re-examine the candidate.

Clinton's actions exposed the nation to security risks that could have seriously compromised our security. Something all Americans ought be concerned with and consider during their decision making process on who to vote for in November. Clinton's handling of her e-mails call into question her judgement at the very least.

Putting the above aside, even if there was "no intent to comit criminal activity" her lying does highlight her disregard for honesty and a willingness to put her personal political ambitions above the interests of the nation. Questioning her honesty, integrity, judgment, intelligence,  trustworthiness, and ability to serve the nation and its best interest is now both reasonable and rational.


  1. We still must place ".. honesty, integrity, judgment, intelligence, trustworthiness, and ability to serve the nation and its best interest is now both reasonable and rational." in the context of the ongoing campaign. For example, given the FBI considers the case unworthy of, how do
    we re-evaluate the glaring difference in 'truthiness' presented in the graph in your previous posting "Trump, America's Lying Presidential Candidate" dtd 07-02-2016? Or, for that matter what the
    years of Hillary investigations would find if Drumpf was the target? Lots to consider.

  2. RN, we may never know what made Comey not refer charges to the DOJ. We do know Hillary admitted to wanting her own private server for convenience. Is that criminal? No. But it certainly should be considered dangerous to our national security.

    She did lie, and more than once, it appears. And for that, if I were thinking of voting for her, I'd definitely reconsider.

    1. As I noted in my response to BB Idaho a lot of people may be reconsidering their vote. For me (as well as my wife) the third party option has once again taken on new life and purpose. It is indeed darkening in America in the 21st century.

      Power breeds corruption and corruption thrives as it parasitically lives off the lifeblood of a nation, its people.

      Sad indeed.

  3. I am not the agency that investigated, the FBI is. The article linked is an Associated Press article, I cut what I consider unnecessary verbiage as you see above. I expressed my opinion, one that millions likely share and struggle with as they make their decisions as for whom to vote. HRC is far from an ideal candidate (as Shaw noted in an e-mail following publication of this post) and is without a doubt and in the very least disingenuous. Can we trust her? You be the judge.

    I have hammered Trump (Drumpf) hard and often. Almost as much as Shaw has and I've done so for goddamn good reasons. He is both mentally and emotionally unfit to be president, there can be no doubt, assuming rationality. I have intentionally steered clear of hammering HRC precisely because of the fever pitch irrational rhetoric of right over Benghazi and other issues regarding HRC. But, Clinton is not as pristine as some on the left (not mentioning any names here) apparently would have us believe.

    Simply put Trump is greatest evil and not deserving of holding a position as a Washington DC Dog Catcher. Clinton has qualification yet many are likely VERY uncomfortable with the idea of he as our president as well, albeit for much different reasons.

    In a nutshell, voting this year will be far from enjoyable and may result in many casting a vote for a third party.

    1. The revelations in the post are nothing new to me, RN.

      Referring back to the George Will column: the choice is clear. It's rather unpleasant, but clear.

      Any vote for a third-party candidate is a vote that one of the two major would have benefited from (or in the case of voting against) would have been diminished by.

      If Trump wins, all those votes HRC could have had but instead went to a third party candidate have boosted his election victory.

      That being said, Gary Johnson is a fine candidate. His views reflect a concern for the rights of every single American, and not a tiny handful of plutocrats. I wish he counted for more than a spoiler, though.

    2. Actually dmarks I have recently concluded that attempting to change the broken system by working through the is a fools errand. We have simply regressed (over the past 35 years) to the point were it is no longer possible. This nation is in deep trouble and the political and economic forces pulling the puppet strings and shots are simply are only going to make the broken system far worse. What would be hilarious, were it not so sad, is the Trump is part and partial of that broken system. So is HRC.

      Buckle up cause it is going to get far worse before it gets better.

    3. I certainly can't argue there....

  4. Simply put. The Liar, aka Hillary Clinton will NEVER be President of this country. You can take that to the bank.

  5. If not IMO then an even Bigger Liar, aka Donald J. Trump, will be. I suppose you're down with that?

    The one thing you can take to the bank for certain is that the GOP, specifically the Tea Party/Evangelical/Neocon wings are near completely out of touch with rational
    political thought or discussion. The party that has went nutty chose the least qualified and biggest nut ever to support.

    Thanks for stopping by.

  6. Hey asshole how about an opinion on Crooked Hillary?
    Or are you alright with that?

  7. Replies
    1. I no longer respond to trolls whose only purpose is to disrupt honest discussion and honest disagreement. Not will I respond to those who fail to follow comment policy. Consider this your last post IMO.

      BTW, had you chose to read the post you would know my opinion.

      Buh Bye!

  8. It is... reasonably easy to conclude the decision was very possibly politically motivated, and or made under pressure by those who are politically motivated. Of course that is conjecture, and, as we all know, the strokes will be viewed differently by different folks.

    Indeed. I do not make this "reasonable conclusion". The bushies should have been prosecuted re their email scandal. A scandal that involved actual crimes... as opposed to just going against guidelines. And Comey is a Republican who served under bush (although he was not in a position to prosecute bush for his crimes). That his actions were "very possibly politically motivated" is an utterly ridiculous suggestion. Also ridiculous that he caved "under pressure by those who are politically motivated" given the fact that as "acting Attorney General during the March 2004 hospitalization of John Ashcroft, phe] refused to certify the legality of central aspects of the NSA program". If he was the kind of man who gave into pressure, he would have signed off on the bush illegal wiretapping. This, by comparrison, is small potatoes.

    BTW, I find myself agreeing with much of what dmarks wrote, except for Gary Johnson being a "fine candidate" whose "views reflect a concern for the rights of every single American, and not a tiny handful of plutocrats". I'd say the opposite of that is true. The Koch brothers are Libertarians for this very reason (the primary goal of the Libertarian Party being turning over as much power as possible to the plutocrats).

    1. I'm sure RN will address Gary Johnson more in the future. But anyone who reads this blog would know that RN is not "plutocrat friendly" and would not endorse a candidate whose primary goal was benefiting plutocrats.

  9. Enjoy your revisit to Bush history and your obsession with that family Dervish. Have a nice summer.

    1. gwb was president right before our current president, yet you continually dismiss anyone who brings him up as if his presidency was ancient history (was email even invented in the olden days of the bush administration?). This is a very common defense presented by the bush apologist.

      btw, correcting a typo in my comment above "phe]" should be "[he]".

    2. Yes, no one seems to be concerned about the 5 MILLION missing emails from the Bush administration.

  10. The post is not about GWB, but I guess what you're all really trying to highlight is it's okay because Bush did it as well.

    Have a nice summer.

    1. You guess wrong RN. I am highlighting that many of the people screaming for Clinton's head over the emails were and continue to be very silent over Bush's emails.

    2. Bush has been retired for almost 8 years. Personally, i'm not excited with the thought of another GWB.

    3. Clinton is certainly no GWB. That said, I'm not particularly excited about a Clinton presidency either, ....BUT...a Clinton presidency is miles in front of a Trump presidency which would be GWB on steroids.

  11. PS: Site will remain active for comments. Feel free to peruse the archives and leave comment as desired. I will eventually get to releasing ALL worthwhile and topic related comments.


Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.

Top Posts

Are We Americans Capable of Entering Into Rational, Honest, and Productive Discusion Over Sensitive Matters?...

2015 Could Be a Bad Year for Liberals...

Looking To 2016...

From the Tea-Publican Right...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

As the Senseless Violence Continues...