NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
She didn't need show business skills, Gene - she needed a platform that people could get excited about. But instead, she promised more of the status quo - which is exactly what the electorate didn't want. Hillary Clinton lost the election to a wicked blithering idiot because she's an entitled, arrogant, corrupt corporatist sell-out, and everyone knew it. Bernie Sanders has the charisma of a dried prune, and yet he was crushing Trump in the polls by 10-15 points. So we have President Trump because the Democrats rigged the primary against their strongest candidate, in favor of the most unpopular presidential candidate in the history of the Democratic Party. They're the ones to blame for this.Would be better with Trump’s picture. If she had show business skills the outcome would have been different.
I think it would be a lot easier to answer the question "In what way wasn't the primary rigged?" Because they primary was rigged in every manner imaginable.How was the primary rigged?
Tell the to the 19 people arrested, and those among them who confessed already.The entire "RussiaGate" conspiracy theory is a smokescreen to deflect attention from these facts.
19 people have been charged, not arrested. 13 of those are Russians who posted a few stupid memes on facebook. The rest have been swept up in the McCarthyist dragnet that Mueller has cast to force people to testify about the collusion with the Russians that never happened.Tell the to the 19 people arrested, and those among them who confessed already.
Fine: name it. Hint: "collusion" isn't a crime in our legal system; nor is "consorting," "befriending" or "fraternizing." A few of them lied because they were afraid of getting caught up in the witch-hunt, and a few of them got busted for unrelated corruption, but there's still zero evidence that Trump or his people actually colluded with the Russian government regarding the 2016 election.There was a crime
Comey used the bogus Steele dossier that Hillary Clinton purchased from Fusion GPS to convince a FISA court to spy on Trump's campaign. I would've fired him too. Comey also conducted a cover-up "investigation" to absolve Hillary for her crimes in deliberately transferring classified intelligence to her unencrypted basement server, which was almost certainly hacked by most if not all of our nation's adversaries. That's why we have President Trump: if Comey had done his job and indicted her, then we'd have President Sanders today instead of President Trump.Trump committed obstruction before our eyes, when he admitted on TV that Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation.
Three small Clinton-leaning groups of operatives in the CIA, NSA, and the FBI reported their opinions/narratives about the Russian hacking allegations, and all of those reports were totally bereft of any empirical evidence to support their opinions - I know, I've read all of them, looking for any actual evidence. There's none there. And the original assessment by CrowdStrike (a DNC private contractor - the FBI was refused access to their servers) was later found to contain a pivotal error - there was no "similar hacking" of the Ukrainian ground-based missile systems by the Russians, which was the basis of their assessment of Russian involvement. It turned out to all come down to a clerical error in the number of missile launchers in the area at the time.The intelligence agencies concluded that Russia did meddle, that it was likely under Putin's authority, and targeted Clinton.
Actually Comey sat on that information for several weeks before announcing that they'd re-opened the investigation. In any case Comey is directly responsible for President Trump, but only through corruption and ineptitude, so I don't think that the bloviating baboon owes him any gratitude.When Comey revealed the investigation into emails in Weiner's laptop days before the election, he basically elected Trump. Trump should have thanked him, not attacked him.
No. The actual application indicated that the Steele dossier which has never been disproven, was only a small part of the presentation. Even the Republican version of the memo that got so much publicity indicates that.Comey used the bogus Steele dossier that Hillary Clinton purchased from Fusion GPS to convince a FISA court to spy on Trump's campaign. I would've fired him too. Comey also conducted a cover-up "investigation" to absolve Hillary for her crimes in deliberately transferring classified intelligence to her unencrypted basement server, which was almost certainly hacked by most if not all of our nation's adversaries. That's why we have President Trump: if Comey had done his job and indicted her, then we'd have President Sanders today instead of President Trump.
Right about collusion.Fine: name it. Hint: "collusion" isn't a crime in our legal system; nor is "consorting," "befriending" or "fraternizing." A few of them lied because they were afraid of getting caught up in the witch-hunt, and a few of them got busted for unrelated corruption, but there's still zero evidence that Trump or his people actually colluded with the Russian government regarding the 2016 election.
That’s not how empirical reasoning works Gene: the burden of proof is on the claimant. There’s no such thing as “the burden of disproving.” Not a single claim in the Steele dossier has been confirmed, and many journalists have tried.No. The actual application indicated that the Steele dossier which has never been disproven
I’m aware of the corporate Democrat spin on this. I simply stated that it was used, not that it was the only evidence presented. It’s egregious that it was used at all, because all of the claims that can be checked have been refuted. The rest reads like garbage pulp fiction because it is.was only a small part of the presentation.
FactCheck.org disagrees with you:Even the Republican version of the memo that got so much publicity indicates that.
No that’s all wrong. She had Special Access Program intelligence on her server:Even So Clinton should have been indicted because she overlooked 3 confidential messages not properly marked? So called classified emails were relabeled classified after they were sent.
You’re dead wrong. Her private email server didn’t even have an SSL Certificate for the first three months (so her emails could have been intercepted in transit with no encryption):There is no evidence that her private server wasn't encrypted or otherwise secured. That's fake news.
We don’t need Brian Pagliano’s testimony about this because of the Datto Inc. / Platte River email above. You’re just repeating the fake news you hear from MSNBC and CNN etc., which is now just as bad as Faux News. No corporate news media can be trusted; they're all liars/manipulators. Rachel Maddow is just the Democrat equivalent of Sean Hannity now.There is no public testimony from the IT person who set it up about the security precautions used. You are citing the fake Fox News version of this story, not what really happened.
Colin Powell had a .gov email address that he used for state business, and also a private email account like everyone else on the planet. Clinton never even set up a .gov account – all of her emails as Secretary of State went through her unencrypted private email server.And consider Colin Powell, who used AOL for his email, and then destroyed all of it rather than turning over copies to the State Department when he left. How much classified information did he send out anyway?
Because the two cases aren’t even remotely comparable:Why wasn't he investigated?
Russia isn’t a communist country anymore – it’s capitalist now, and a lot of people do business with them, including the Clintons. I have yet to see any evidence that merits suspicion with regard to any Trump/Russia election interference.But there is a lot of reason for suspicion. It seemed that everyone around Trump was contacting Russians. Trump never expected to win, so he was working to set up businesses, including a Trump tower, in Russia.
Defense for what? We still have zero evidence for any crime - and by god they've been looking hard for two years now, and the FBI even had a man on the inside of his campaign. Still: bupkis.If he was totally innocent, why is he using the O.J. Simpson defense, blaming the authorities because he has no valid defense?
Trump attacks everyone, especially his own appointees, all across the board. He doesn’t seem frightened to me; he seems annoyed. I’d be annoyed too if the corrupt corporate news media kept droning on about some imaginary McCarthyist fever dream for two years with zero credible evidence to back any of it up.What does he have to hide when he attacks a Republican Justice Department led by his own appointees? He's so defensive about it he must be near frightened to death.
The SSL is installed for the domain, not for the email system. If it wasn't installed properly, that would be a lapse of the IT person, not Clinton who is definitely not tech savvy. On the other hand, is there any evidence that it was thus hacked?You’re dead wrong. Her private email server didn’t even have an SSL Certificate for the first three months (so her emails could have been intercepted in transit with no encryption):
For 3 months Hillary Clinton’s email access was unencrypted, vulnerable to spies
It appears to have only been unencrypted for a short time. But State Department regulations didn't require using a .gov address, nor did Powell always use a .gov address for his business mail. In fact, he advised Clinton about his setup.Colin Powell had a .gov email address that he used for state business, and also a private email account like everyone else on the planet. Clinton never even set up a .gov account – all of her emails as Secretary of State went through her unencrypted private email server.
You're not paying attention. American's intelligence agencies all agree on this. From the indictments from the special prosecutor, it's clear that there were Russians charged with manipulating social networks and some campaign events to favor Trump.Russia isn’t a communist country anymore – it’s capitalist now, and a lot of people do business with them, including the Clintons. I have yet to see any evidence that merits suspicion with regard to any Trump/Russia election interference.
Nothing imaginary about that coverage. Trump himself admits that he raves about fake news because he wants to discredit the mainstream media so people won't believe them when they present negative stories about him.Trump attacks everyone, especially his own appointees, all across the board. He doesn’t seem frightened to me; he seems annoyed. I’d be annoyed too if the corrupt corporate news media kept droning on about some imaginary McCarthyist fever dream for two years with zero credible evidence to back any of it up.
Actually they know of at least one hack and a slew of attacks. But former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and others, have stated that the odds are high that it was hacked by foreign states:The SSL is installed for the domain, not for the email system. If it wasn't installed properly, that would be a lapse of the IT person, not Clinton who is definitely not tech savvy. On the other hand, is there any evidence that it was thus hacked?
She was the decider, so to speak. It’s all on her. Unquestionaing Democratic loyalists are always quick to point out how qualified and experienced she was after decades in top-level politics, but whenever she intentionally orders her people to transfer classified government data to her server, suddenly she’s as blameless as a newborn lamb. It’s pretty funny.Alas, you cannot blame Clinton about this, you can blame the people who worked for her.
So you either ignored my last post entirely, or you didn’t understand the evidence that I provided.It appears to have only been unencrypted for a short time.
PolitiFact disagrees with you:But State Department regulations didn't require using a .gov address
Did you read that through a fun-house mirror? He sent private personal messages through his private email account, like we all do every day. She stored Special Access Program intelligence on a home-brew server that was never encrypted. Powell’s case is a minor oversight, her case is a major and deliberate breach of national security.Says Powell: ""With respect to records, if I sent an email from my public email account to an addressee at another public email account it would not have gone through State Department servers. It was a private conversation similar to a phone call. If I sent it to a state.gov address it should have been captured and retained by State servers," Powell said. "I was not aware at the time of any requirement for private, unclassified exchanges to be treated as official records."
Thus admitting he sent email from his "public email account" to "a state.gov address."
At least it’s encrypted.At worst, Clinton was naive about the process, but State Department email was far from the most secure.
No Gene, you’re following the headlines without doing any follow-up: the bogus “17 intelligence agencies agree” lie that Clinton pushed through the corporate news media was proven to be complete BS. It was three groups of Clinton loyalists in three agencies, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI, (and one individual, ODNI James Clapper) who pushed the retarded RussiaGate narrative for Her Highness. Here’s a video of James Clapper admitting that it was only three agencies:You're not paying attention. American's intelligence agencies all agree on this.
Indictments aren’t proof of anything. Those Russians only posted a few stupid memes on social media, and promoted some small political rallies on both sides of the political spectrum. Clinton and her psycho buddy David Brock spent $10M on operatives posting under fake profiles all over social media throughout the primary and general election. I want to see them prosecuted for meddling with our election process, not the Russians:From the indictments from the special prosecutor, it's clear that there were Russians charged with manipulating social networks and some campaign events to favor Trump.
What a joke. I know that Trump pushes the fake news narrative for his own benefit, but again and again and again and again, the BS corporate fake news that you seem to rely upon solely for your information, has demonstrated that it's nothing more than state propaganda; the WMD’s in Iraq, the news blackouts on the endless mass murder operations abroad, the entire 2016 primary, the bogus Syria reporting and the fake narratives about the “moderate rebels” (aka Al-Nusra/al-Qaeda/ISIS “rebels”) – all corporate news media is lies and propaganda Gene, even MSNBC and CNN.Nothing imaginary about that coverage. Trump himself admits that he raves about fake news because he wants to discredit the mainstream media so people won't believe them when they present negative stories about him.
Clearly you fell for his scam.
I had borscht a few weeks ago, so I must be a Kremlin agent. That’s the kind of “evidence” these liars are pushing 24/7. It’s bewildering that anyone falls for it. The corporate news media is not your friend Gene – they’re not trying to inform your mind, they’re trying to control it. And it’s working.Indeed there is so much evidence of questionable contacts between Trump's fellow criminals and Russians and representatives from other countries, you wonder how anyone can overlook it all.
You’re assuming that it’s true, and then basing your assessment of his behavior on that assumption without any compelling evidence whatsoever.Once again, why should an innocent party be so defensive about an investigation, and try so hard to discredit it? An innocent party should just say bring it on and cooperate. Even Nixon didn't raise near as much of a fuss.
I don't think that's a picture of Hillary Clinton guys. Am I missing something?
Still not clear how you guys wound up on Hillary Clinton here.