Berg’s Seventh Law Is Universal And Immutable, Part MXMVI
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Democrats claimed Hillary’s emails were not classified when sent, they were retroactively changed from unclassified to classified to make Hillary look bad.
That always seemed a bit odd to me. Why would the Democrat administration be trying to harm the Democrat candidate?
Now, it turns out the opposite was true – the Democrat administration pressured the FBI to un-classify emails that already were classified, trying to make Hillary look good.
More confirmation of the wisdom of Berg’s Seventh Law of Liberal Projection.
Joe Doakes
It never fails.
Never.
October 19th, 2016 at 6:10 am
Do we still burn people alive? Asking for future reference.
October 19th, 2016 at 6:44 am
If Monty Python taught me anything, and they most certainly did, it’s that all witches weigh the same as a duck. It’s the only valid test for such an accusation.
She’s a witch! https://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g
October 19th, 2016 at 7:06 am
Say, Emery, you ever heard of ‘making a virtue out of a necessity’? That’s what a person might do if they have two equally bad choices, but for some reason can only abide choosing the one thing and not the other. Suddenly that one thing that they have to choose looks better than it really is, and one thing they can’t choose looks much worse.
October 19th, 2016 at 8:26 am
BG, you are using logical constructs, something eTASS does not comprehend nor is interested in cause it contradicts with the demented reality he inhabits. No matter how many times he is proven wrong (which is every time), he is always right – in his mind only.
October 19th, 2016 at 8:50 am
Okay, lemme try the “jelly donut” analogy.
You have two jelly donuts, one raspberry, one lemon. Both are equally bad for you, and you can only have one, or none. You really would prefer the lemon jelly donut over the raspberry jelly donut . . .
October 19th, 2016 at 9:54 am
I think there are a lot of Republicans who will choose to not vote for President, or choose Hilary or Johnson, then proceed to vote Republican for everything else (I know several). In some ways the certainty of Hilary as president might spur their participation all the more. I expect we will find a Senate with 50 +/- 1 seats for each party, a solid if diminished Republican House majority, and no real mandate for Hilary despite a 10-15% margin in vote share, because the campaign has been about Trump, not policies. I hope that a somewhat chastened Republican Congress and a centrist Hilary can find productive things to do together, but I won’t hold my breath while waiting. 2018 will likely safely return the Senate to Republican hands (many vulnerable Democrats). 2020 will see a more electable Republican nominee, probably after changes to the way the nominee is selected.
If Democrats don’t get their act together at the state level before the 2020 census, the current pattern that elects Republican congresses and Democratic presidents could continue for some time.
October 19th, 2016 at 10:08 am
Well Mitch, your “Law” would be immutable if it were right, but it isn’t. The fact is of the 110 or so e-mails which were classified, 103 were classified after the fact, so, Joe, you’re a knuckle-head (not news). It’s not that the “opposite was true”, it’s that it was EXACTLY true that things were classified after the fact. The President is not an all-seeing overlord, and the DoD or whomever it is making the decision to classify details, doesn’t always respond, in fact doesn’t even ask, the Executive Branch for permission to classify. It is a widely reported fact that we over-classify, and often OFTEN do so retro-actively, so there’s no “reverse effect” at all.
The horse trading the Clinton staffer seems to have suggested wasn’t done/didn’t work and it was about the potential classification of an e-mail. They were arguing about whether something SHOULD be classified. That happens a lot inside the government. Should State NOT argue about something they feel shouldn’t be classified? Now, I’ll grant you that they shouldn’t be offering favors, but that sort of horse trading happens all the time. So, long and short Joe (and the ever mistaken Mitch), there wasn’t any and isn’t any truth to the assertion that these 103 e-mails were classified at start, which is what is being alluded to, they were classified after the fact, and that’s a fact. Further, there is very little truth to your ginned-up, hyped-up story about a staffer wanting to horse trade about the treatment of ONE e-mail, in that it doesn’t reflect some broad success in retro-actively declassifying details. That’s nonsense and you know it.
So much for immutability.
October 19th, 2016 at 10:13 am
By the way, Emory, I think your read of this coming election is SPOT ON. Hillary is likely to be a one-term President and the Republicans are likely to use the state-houses they control to gerrymander the crap out of those states to ensure that even if the state is purple, it elects a disproportionate share of Republicans, just as they did in Texas. What they’re all afraid of is that when such conduct is challenged in front of a SCOTUS which is more centrist, they’re going to lose challenges to such conduct, just like they’ve lost challenges about voter ID laws intended to stop fraud which their own party leadership now admits isn’t happening and is the concern of buffoons.
October 19th, 2016 at 10:25 am
Well Mitch, your “Law” would be immutable if it were right, but it isn’t.
Sure it is. Always. That’s why it’s a law.
I urge you to familiarize yourself with the history of Berg’s 7th Law.
October 19th, 2016 at 10:32 am
Oh, yeah. When someone ends a statement with “…and you know it”, it usually means I know pretty much the opposite, or will when I know the facts anyway.
Just saying; it doens’t build a case.
October 19th, 2016 at 11:46 am
Emery Incognito on October 19, 2016 at 9:54 am said:
I think there are a lot of Republicans who will choose to not vote for President, or choose Hilary or Johnson, then proceed to vote Republican for everything else (I know several).
I think that you point out some things that will be factors in the election, Emery, but the question is how big the factor will be. Party labels aside, I do not believe that there will be any conservatives voting for Hillary (unless David Brooks qualifies as a conservative). Limbaugh is closer to the center of conservatism, and the GOP, than Krauthammer.
It is possible to vote ‘against’ Hillary by voting for a third party at the top of the ballot and straight R down the rest of it. I put ‘against’ in quotes because you are not voting for her opponent, but for her opposition.
I will make no predictions. How is that inevitable British recession working out? 🙂
The reason I am an optimist about the Human condition is because people don’t want to be miserable. If Texas or California voted to secede, it wouldn’t mean economic collapse and the End of the America because a whole lot of smart, powerful people would say “we gotta figure out some way to make this thing work or we are screwed.”
October 19th, 2016 at 11:50 am
OK, Penigma, it’s worth noting that not 110, but rather 2000, of Clinton’s emails featured data that was classified. While some were “declared classified” after the fact, that does not mean that they should have been on a private server–and moreover, anyone who has been trained in the recognition of classified information would have recognized the data as sensitive. It really is not that complicated–if it’s not data that’s known in the press, it should be handled on a secure server.
Your employer probably has this rule with far less sensitive information. I know mine does.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/
And yes, quid pro quo in the treatment of an email does matter here, because it demonstrates that people were bribing others and perverting government to cover Hilliary’s tracks. That is a crime for which both Hilliary and Mr. Kennedy ought to do jail time.
October 19th, 2016 at 12:12 pm
Since Dog Bone is essentially banned from commenting, I wonder if she’s now using the log in for her pal
MalignaPenigma.October 19th, 2016 at 12:16 pm
Nah. Their written “tells” are totally different.
Pen in particular has some “tells” in his writing style that are as subtle as a foghorn in church. Back when he was trying to post under different sock puppets, I think I made them all in about five seconds. Combined.
October 19th, 2016 at 1:22 pm
“You’ve improperly listed this email as containing classified information which it does not, please correct your error” is not the same as “if you change the list to say this email does not contain classified information, I’ll give you a couple more agents overseas.”
Similarly, “we’ve decided this information should be classified so go find everyplace it occurs and mark it classified – including sent emails” (retroactively classifying information) is not the same as “hey, the information in that email is classified, how did it get into this email?” (retroactively marking email as containing classified information).
Even a knuckle-head like me can see the difference. Odd that others cannot.
October 19th, 2016 at 1:37 pm
Forget about 19,998 of those emails; just forget ’em.
Focus only on the two of them that were classified Top Secret \ Special Access Program.
That’s the kind of shit that will get people killed if it leaks. There are specific procedures not only for how it can be handled, and by whom, but for how it MUST BE MARKED.
http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520507vol4.pdf
Comey showed his hand when he didn’t mention the markings that, by federal law, must have been on those documents. Not only does it prove Hillary for the damned lying traitor she is, it proves Comey traded his integrity for a shot at keeping his job after the next election.
Hillary treated those two documents with less respect than Coke treats it’s recipe for sugary carbonated beverages. It’s a God Damned outrage, unprecedented in history.
Any of the SITD regulars that served in the military can tell you that if we had done what Hillary did, we would have been courts martialed and if convicted, would have done some time. And so should Hillary.
Teh Peevee, that’s a long winded way of telling you to go fuck yourself.
October 19th, 2016 at 2:01 pm
You don’t even have to be military, or for that matter you don’t need to have ever held a security clearance. Back as a young pup, I had about 20 minutes from HR at TRW in Space Park where it was made very clear that if you mishandled sensitive information, you’d likely have a very uncomfortable meeting with HR followed by an even more uncomfortable meeting with the FBI. If it looked bad enough, you got to skip the meeting with HR.
And let’s be more blunt about this; even apart from government contracting, I have never had an employer who would have been happy to find out that I’d been handling their data outside their firewall. So liberal defenses of Mrs. Clinton ring really, really hollow here. It is almost as if the employers of liberals need to take a close look and reevaluate whether they can risk having a Democrat in the office.
October 19th, 2016 at 2:36 pm
It is almost as if the employers of liberals need to take a close look and reevaluate whether they can risk having a Democrat in the office.
I’ve reevaluated the risk of having Democrats around me, and found it unacceptable. That is why I do not associate with them by choice at any time.