CA Democrat Convention Features Mass F-Bomb

Posted on Sunday, May 21, 2017 by Post Scripts

This adolescent display was led by the chairman of the convention. What a leader! Class act. This is the phony mob that imagines it has the moral authority to be critical of our new President.

Submitted by J. Soden in comments.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to CA Democrat Convention Features Mass F-Bomb

  1. Tina says:
    Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Ben Stein nails California Democrats, and Democrats in general, in his new article in the Spectator, “The Rosenstein Doctrine”:

    A few respectful thoughts on Special Prosecutors.

    First of all, now that we know we can have Special Prosecutors without there being any meaningful evidence of a crime, or in fact any evidence at all of a crime besides gossip and endless political campaigning, let’s have a Special Prosecutor for Maxine Waters. She’s the screaming voice of the most anti-Trump, shrillest slice of the Democrat party. She’s been a civil servant all of her life, earning a modest wage. Somehow, she has a $4.5 million dollar home and other property here in L.A. True, there’s no evidence so far that’s she’s taken bribes. But under the logic of Rod Rosenstein, that only means she’s all the more guilty and needs a Special Prosecutor to investigate every aspect of her whole life.

    “The more innocent, the more guilty,” said Stalin, and this is obviously the logic of the moment.

    There’s no longer any need for an obvious crime. Just the allegation of a crime is now enough under the Rosenstein doctrine. So let’s also go after former Democrat Senator from Sunny Cal, Barbara Boxer. She’s a long-time Civil Servant, too. But she flies first class (I know because I’ve been yelled at by her in that cabin). Plus, she has a house in a posh Rancho Mirage community near mine. How could she have gotten that except by bribes? We need a Special Prosecutor.

    Barack Obama earned peanuts for years and now he’s in a mansion in Kalorama and looking for a home also near us in Rancho Mirage. Where did that money come from? Yes, you’ll say it’s from a book advance and maybe it is. But maybe not. He met with diplomats from dozens of foreign powers. How do we know he didn’t get paid off? How do we know he wasn’t paid off to NOT bomb Syria after they crossed “the red line” in gassing their own civilians? Yes, there’s no evidence of it, but why should that stop anyone? I have now alleged that it’s a possibility that Mr. Obama took a bribe not to bomb Syria. How can we know if I’m right or not without a Special Prosecutor?

    And why stop there.

    Reply
  2. J. Soden says:
    Monday, May 22, 2017 at 6:55 am

    And here’s an update for all you “freeloaders” out there in Taxifornia:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/21/jerry-browns-california-freeloaders-hit-back-on-ta/

    Reply
    • Tina says:
      Monday, May 22, 2017 at 1:34 pm

      Most organizations are made up of the few who do a lot of the work and the rank and file that show up for the parties and special events but contribute very little of the work. In this atmosphere one can sympathize with the pull to disregard the rank and file when it comes to decisions as important as, in the case of political parties, who will be their official candidate. Sympathies aside, an organization that undermines its integrity by shutting out the rank and file in important decision making, especially by untoward means, is a party that will ultimately fail.

      The Democrats will feel the sting of the Hillary/Bernie sham for some time.

      Reply
  4. Libby says:
    Monday, May 22, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Whereas “Lock her up” is the height of emotional maturity. Go soak yer heads.

    Reply
    • Tina says:
      Monday, May 22, 2017 at 8:05 pm

      Oh I don’t know about that Libby. I think there’s quite a big difference in the two displays.

      Democrats are very angry that their team lost the last election. They believed right up to the last minute that she was a shoe in. Their one finger salute, both vocal and digital, was a baseless case of acting out. They should all be sent to their rooms sans le diner.

      On the other hand, Republicans and Indendents were extremely frustrated and shocked that James Comey laid out a very strong case for recommending indictment of Hillary Clinton and then chose to refrain from making that recommendation. That frustration was tripled due to all of the surrounding shenanigans Bill on the tarmac….

      The laws in question are:

      18 USC Sec. 1924, which outlaws the unauthorized removal and storage of classified information. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to one year.

      18 USC Sec. 793 which covers national defense information and people who misuse it to injure the United States or benefit a foreign power. Those convicted of violating that law face fines and up to 10 years in prison.

      That portion of the transcript of Comey’s findings are a reminder of what the FBI found:

      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.

      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.

      Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

      While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

      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.

      “Lock her up,” is a much more appropriate, and amazingly good-natured expression for what Trump supporters believed was an egregious failure of our justice system.

      We have watched liberals destroy people and send them to jail over much less for many many years. Scooter Libby erred in his recollection of a date.

      I suspect you need to rethink the entire situation.

      Reply
  5. TruthToPower says:
    Monday, May 22, 2017 at 7:23 pm

    I am at the point with Democrats and Republicans.

    This is not a game of red and blue and all you guys do is follow media fighting each other while we get robbed blind.

    Reply
  6. Chris says:
    Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 9:40 am

    There is no excuse for this. I would find this language vulgar at a street protest; at a convention it is just shameful.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.