I will keep this succinct, until I break into the meta portion.
A diary on today’s reclist argues that Clinton is likely to be indicted for criminal activity. This argument comes from the right-wing leaning website RealClearPolitics. It was written by a professor of political science. Both of those facts should be red flags. First, the posting of right-wing memes on DailyKos is deeply problematic, but has become commonplace in the current environment of fact-free Hillary Hate.
Second, the field of political science relies on frameworks. The framework model instructs practitioners of the field to decide what they think, and then cherrypick information which supports the pre-created frameworks. This is a systemic problem within that field, and is something a number of academics are working to fix. What it means is that any document written by a political scientist needs to be fact-checked from the very beginning, and cannot be trusted unless someone is willing to do the academic vetting that is automatically required.
The entire discussion on Clinton and the FBI hinges on the claim that Felonious -yes, specifically Felonious - activity took place.
But when you stop listening to political scientists and start listening to lawyers you get a very different story. For example, this supreme court decision which deals with the espionage act:
We find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.
Gorin vs. United States
In other words, in order to prove that Hillary Clinton committed a crime, they would have to prove that she intended to injure the united states with her actions.
In order to prove that Clinton committed a Felony, they must prove that Hillary Clinton intended to harm the United States.
That fact is left out of the “Clinton is Evil” framework constructed by a political scientist whose intent seems to have been to rubbish Clinton, especially since that was posted on RealClearPolitics, which is known to skew to the right.
I know that facts are inconvenient to our politics. Especially for those who are becoming desperate to ruin one of the two best presidential candidates we’ve had in a long time.
But facts matter. And the facts are that in order to prove felonious activity under the espionage act, intent is required.
That is why no other Secretary of State who used a personal e-mail system has been charged with a crime. that is why no charges have been filed against Dick Cheney over Valerie Plame.
When dealing with with law, we shouldn’t pay attention to political scientists, we should pay attention to lawyers.
But instead of doing that, we’re allowing one of our candidates is being smeared with false information.
Facts matter, and I’m done with allowing our candidates, either of them, to be smeared by Republican operatives.
I am so over this primary season. In the coming days I’m going to start tearing down the nonsense that is being wielded against both of our candidates. That means that yes, some of the upcoming posts will be pro-Bernie. In fact, I will commit to making my next post one that defends Bernie Sanders from attacks that I think are unfair. Specifically, the “Berniebro” meme needs to die, and as someone who has been personally attacked on this website and on twitter by aggressive douchecanoes, I think I’m the best person to make that argument. Especially since the “BernieBro” smear is exactly the same partisan bullshit as the “CyberNat” smear I saw during the Scottish Independence Referendum.
Bernie is also a fantastic candidate, and I don’t like the way that he’s been attacked either. He may in fact be our candidate in November, and if he is, I will be overjoyed to support him. Per a post made by veteran Kossack Gchaucer2, I have seen enough evidence at this point to believe that Bernie and his campaign are being targeted by GOP operatives as a way to attack both of our candidates.
And of course there are valid criticisms of both of our candidates. This is not to say that we shouldn’t have reasoned debate.
Clinton is too hawkish. But Bernie is a hawk in Dove’s clothing.
Bernie has issues when it comes to race. Clearly, he does. But Clinton also has a checkered history there. Neither of them have released a plan that satisfies me when it comes to dealing with the state of emergency affecting Black Americans, who are dying in the streets.
But Clinton is not a serial liar and murderer who is going to start the third world war. Her supporters aren’t pragmatic shills who are holding their noses. We like her, and we like her record.
And Bernie isn’t a shouty communist whose plans aren’t realistic. His vision is perfectly realistic. He has very serious economists behind him, Stephanie Kelton specifically. His ideas need to be taken seriously, and so do his supporters, the vast majority of whom are perfectly rational. The people who are supporting him are supporting him for one reason: if we don’t vote for politicians with policies we agree with, we’ll never get the change we want.
I am tired of people disparaging Hillary. I am tired of people discounting Bernie.
It’s time for us to take back DailyKos as a place for reasoned debate.
Maybe I’m tilting at windmills. I don’t much care.
I am going to write what I think needs to be written this primary season. I’m tired of the nonsense. I’m tired of silly season. I’m tired of amateur hour.
I will defend our candidates.
Both of them.
And I call on all of my fellow Kossacks to do the same.