Unless I'm misreading, it looks like the inspectors general are claiming at least one email released by state from Clinton's personal email account contained classified information. But it also looks like none of the emails- including those so far released - were classified at the time clinton had them. I don't now anything about who decides what's classified and what's not at state but I'll bet it's a clerical job and not something done by SecState. Bengazi is going to be an anti clinton meme come election time regardless, but it doesn't look like she will be under threat of any criminal investigation. The thing that upsets me most about the personal email account is the obvious intent to hide emails from FOI requests but I'm not sure that will be an issue since neither party seems at all interested in promoting the idea of open government.
The house committee is never going to get all the docs they subpoenaed. We went through the same charade multiple times in the last admin. Congress issues subpoenaes for docs or testimony, white house says no or drags feet, congress issues contempt of congress citations, white house ignores them or cites executive privilege. The subpoenas issued to Holder and Meirs back around 2005 make it clear congress has only a theoretical right to enforce their subpoenaes but no practical manner of enforcing compliance.
this coming from bureaucrats adds to the narrative she is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
She can be caught standing over a bloody corpse, covered in blood, with the knife in her hand, laughing hysterically. It won't matter.
of course, it doesn't help when they sprinkle in Vince Foster or Ron Brown (? the guy who died in a plane crash with a 'bullet hole' in his head) conspiracy crap. It only covers up the real shit the woman does.
this coming from bureaucrats adds to the narrative she is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
The linked article suggests (and I, like you do not know the procedure) that there is a procedure for classifying material and it sounds like State under her years relied on people outside the gov't. The intelligence agencies sound like they aren't happy about that.
I'm less comfortable than you about splitting hairs on "not classified at the time" for a few reasons: first, if she was ultimately the person in charge of categorizing the documents as classified, then should could classify them or not on the spot at the time when she would have to give them up or not. It's a different version of "I sent over all the documents that were not personal".."who decides if it's personal?" "Well, me".
2) I would think that most documents that should be classified would be readily discernible by anyone with enough competence to be SoS. At the least, you would know that they were sensitive and likely not appropriate for a personal email account (using the same logic as to why people shouldn't have personal access to classified material in the first place). So, the fact that you have a significant number that are now being retroactively classified sounds hinky. I suppose if anything can be considered "Clintonian" it's using legalese to get around something that logic would dictate is wrong. This strikes me as that.
3) She has stated that she used only one account for all correspondence. In order for her never to have classified info on that account, that would mean that she never once had sensitive or classified electronic correspondence coming to her. Is that possible for a SoS over however many years she was SoS? We've got people in our office...just regular flunkies...that receive hundreds of confidential, secure emails a day.
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
What Bill L said. It's not that Petraus shared the information with his mistress/biographer (who had some security clearance), it's that classified information was not handled properly, same as Clinton. Who, it could be argued, handled it less securely because she had it on a private server so it could not be monitored by government security.
And a significant amount of this stuff could be subject to a claim of executive privilege. The one thing that might turn into a "smoking gun" that might not be subject to a claim of executive privilege would be e-mail's to Sidney Blumenthal, as he wasn't a government employee at that time.
What it will do is increase Hillary's negatives with the relatively small number of truly independent voters. Of course if Trump trashes the Republicans it won't matter.
with due respect, neither you nor I have anything remotely approaching the necessary expertise to opine on what is and is not criminal mishandling of confidential emails. Your long post above, while sensible, cannot be jived with the extant system whereunder State employees were allowed to conduct State business over personal email.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
If that's the case, then the system is inherently criminal Â
because what happens is what happened here...nothing is ever classified right up to the point where the public wants to see it and you arbitrarily decide if you want them to.
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
That ridiculous question he asks is sort of typical of the nonsense that the protect Hillary at any cost would ask.
the issue is, as ever, whether this was Hillary treading in legal and ethical gray areas because she assumed that any political harm would be limited, and that her team of harpies would effectively channel any outrage into the same string of loony right conspiracist bullshit about Hillary that has existed for two decades. Which is what seemed to be happening up until this, and probably will happen anyway.
In the face of a unified Republican party standing behind a mainstream candidate with independent appeal and sufficient conservative bonafides to keep the base happy, things like this might hand the Republicans the election. Of course, unicorns and Bigfoot might stroll in from the realm of cryptozoology in the meantime to say hello too.
with due respect, neither you nor I have anything remotely approaching the necessary expertise to opine on what is and is not criminal mishandling of confidential emails. Your long post above, while sensible, cannot be jived with the extant system whereunder State employees were allowed to conduct State business over personal email.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
You know what 'IT' is, you just choose to spin it to come to Hillary's aide. Which is why people like her don't get called to account. If she needs this much protecting from scrutiny, is she really capable and reliable enough to be president?
What we seem to know is this: she committed serious infractions by using her private e-mail and having a private server. Any USG employee, especially with a top secret security clearance, knows you can't do that. (It has been pointed out by some that others have done it in the past).
It also appears she and/or her staff culled through her e-mails and deleted/erased thousands of them and then destroyed the server. That simply doesn't look good.
But one of the elephants in the room is there has been speculation that the Chinese and/or Russians hacked her server. If so, and if she did have politically-fatal or top secret e-mails stolen by their intelligence services, she is actually now exposed to potential blackmail.
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
Democrat politics in particular, even an indictment won't mean a thing. It can be spun into making it look like a time wasting witch hunt. The only thing that might matter would be a conviction and that's certainly not going to happen in any meaningful time frame, if at all.
Democrat politics in particular, even an indictment won't mean a thing. It can be spun into making it look like a time wasting witch hunt. The only thing that might matter would be a conviction and that's certainly not going to happen in any meaningful time frame, if at all.
It works against Republicans. Even though a few investigations have cleared Christie personally on Bridgegate, it has pretty much knocked him out off the race. The never being actually convicted of anything spin does not work for everyone (and it should not work for fat Cowboy fans).
my guess is that they are looking for the wrong shit Â
now, what if she was cheerleading IRS, in some emails, directly or indirectly, while at State, as they set out to single out conservative political groups for intimidation, prior to the last election.
There, you would have the confluence of any number of crimes.
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
not sure if Christie is allowed in NYC, but he could join the hotdog eating contest over at Nathans on Cony Island, there is still that, know, like a consolation prize.
RE: RE: With the state of politics in general, and Â
Even though a few investigations have cleared Christie personally on Bridgegate, it has pretty much knocked him out off the race. The never being actually convicted of anything spin does not work for everyone (and it should not work for fat Cowboy fans).
True. But here you will have a much more docile media as opposed to one that's out for blood.
I thought about the Lynch element too, but when the FBI came out and said there was no evidence of a connection between Muslim extremism and the Marine killings...
This thread has already become ridiculous with rank speculation Â
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The jump to assuming the HRC did something criminal ignores a lot. First, IG's dont deal in criminal statutes. They find facts and then ask prosecutors to decide if any criminal statutes were violated. Second, the Times article does not identify Clinton as a target of the investigation. Indeed, one my imagine that the problem was with people sending materials to Clinton, or the recent release of materials which maybe should have been classified. To that end, note the article says:
Quote:
In a second memo to Mr. Kennedy, sent on July 17, the inspectors general said that at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information. The inspectors general did not identify the email or reveal its substance.... The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.
Look, again it seems crazy to me that government employees are doing government business over private email. Especially anyone in sensitive fields (defense, intel, diplomacy, treasury...). But apparently the regs applicable to State allowed just that, and a previous SoS had also used private email for public purpose. So if that is allowed, what you're left with is a story that she got non-classified material that years later was re-classified as secret.
I dont know how you can criminalize that in a world where private email usage was allowed. That's just first year law school stuff -- one has to have some way of knowing that their conduct was criminally culpable for it to be a crime. You cant have a crime where someone does something legal but then 5 years later some government official decides to change a status and render your already committed conduct illegal. It's like if you're driving 55 on a 55 road, and a year later the state changes it to a 35 road and sends you a speeding ticket for driving 55.
looking back the seeds of much trouble and horror in the world Â
may have been laid during the first Obama administration, Hills, not Kerry, with regards to naïve or doctrinaire ignoring of the situation with what became ISIL and associated bad people.
at least, from the perspective of 'what was our part or not' angle, obviously, not purely causal, but, regarding the lack of a plan to fill that void.
I thinis case it's more like the person who is in chargeof speed limit Â
is driving down the road at 55 and then when the cop pulls her over, decides that the speed limit is now 55.
Because in that case it makes Hillary look culpable, right?
Your scenario doesnt fit the purported facts. The NYT article doesnt suggest she was mishandling then-classified information. Rather, it appears to suggest that she had unclassified information, and then years later that information was changed in status to classified. Right? How does your hypothetical fit that?
Because she s the primary person in charge of deciding Â
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
As for Lynch we will see what happens with the Planned Parenthood case. If she investigates them or the videographer. That will give you the answer.
RE: Because she s the primary person in charge of deciding Â
what is classified and what isn't. So essentially she sets the rules for herself.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
The article seemed vague to me with respect to the reclassification issue. I'm not sure whether the paragraph you linked saying that nothing was classified at the time it was e-mailed applies to the 3000 released documents or the full 55,000. This vagueness is confirmed by the next paragraph which indicates at least one e-mail was classified.
I think some clarification is in order (by the NYT, not you).
I don't like Hillary. I know as a tried and true flaming liberal, I'm Â
the article is horrible. unpublishable in my opinion. I take it that there was another version last night that said that Clinton was the target of the IG's whatever (request??). But that was dropped, perhaps with other stuff, and what was left was an empty hole of vagueness.
So NY Times has changed title of the article and walked back their allegation
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
the article is horrible. unpublishable in my opinion. I take it that there was another version last night that said that Clinton was the target of the IG's whatever (request??). But that was dropped, perhaps with other stuff, and what was left was an empty hole of vagueness.
Jibberish means we don't know that there's an issue. But it also means we don't know there isn't.
RE: RE: Because she s the primary person in charge of deciding Â
what is classified and what isn't. So essentially she sets the rules for herself.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
You're right. There can't be criminality which, as is manifest here, is not the same as dishonesty. What I am saying is that at the time she got the documents they were not classified because she was nominally in charge of the classification. So, they can only be termed classified now.
IMO, it defies logic to have so many documents classified now that weren't obviously classifiable then. In fact, with time the trend should be toward declassification as opposed to classification. So, maybe it's a technicality but it's still a duck. Further, you still have to suspend reality to believe that the SoS was not allowed to handle classified documents during her tenure, which is pretty much what had to have happened in order for her not to have handled classified documents on her email account.
you have rules for secrecy, in other words the Secretary must keep certain things confidential, rules for transparency, that is; that all government employees, no matter how elevated, work for the people, and therefore are subject to rules regarding how they communicate, rules that don't typically apply to citizens.
So that's that. Two sets of regulations or laws.
But, in addition, you can bet that IF anything was redacted outside of normal procedure, then THAT in and of itself will turn out to have been breaking some other whole regulation or law, otherwise it would have not been redacted in the first place. They are not going to risk breaking set of laws 'A' just over something that looks bad, it will be about set 'B.'
right, but Im on the side of innocent until proven guilty. Whereas there are a lot of voices on this thread screaming like Redd Foxx that (finally) "THIS IS THE BIG ONE".
Those who like HRC, think this is a witch hunt. Those who don't like her, think she is hiding something. You'll never change minds on this subject.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
right, but Im on the side of innocent until proven guilty. Whereas there are a lot of voices on this thread screaming like Redd Foxx that (finally) "THIS IS THE BIG ONE".
Or it could be one of the thousand cuts (no criminality but highly questionable ethics) that eventually prove fatal.
I don't care what's been proven or is provable, I don't care who has Â
done what in the past, or what kind of excuses or justifications anyone can come up with. If you don't know in your gut that the Clinton's are dishonest at their cores then something is amiss is the cosmos. Not to say that most politicians don't fit the same mold, the Clinton's have just had more time and ability to perfect the art.
she didn't "request" to use this server. She was told by her employer at the time (President Obama) that she should use a .gov address, but chose to use her own private server anyway. Just as she was asked to keep Blumenthal out of her administration, yet chose to continuously consult him anyway.
what they have done is justified further investigation on the grounds of both sets of regulations (secrecy visa vis the enemy and transparency visa vis the people)
The elephant in the room being that they know the Clintons wont is to push the envelope and that something over and above those two will rear its head, assuming they can find any missing emails.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
yes but not every USC employee is married to an ex President
The Secret Service set up the server for Bill Clinton and any reasonable person would assume that it would be extremely secure. Do you think She would have turned down SOS job if USC IT department said no to this request?
They said Ok so she did it .. If there is someone at fault it is the IT and Security Departments of Federal Government not Clinton
In addition I would assume most SOS sensitive business is NOT handled by email which is the most vulnerable modern communication
Quote:
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Yes the optics reek so the Republicans will correctly keep on pushing this
because that is all they have BENAGAZI!!!!!!!!!!!
Im generally a Hillary supporter but I dont think this specifically is a witch hunt (who are the witch hunters? Obama's State and Intel IGs? Not exactly the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).
You'd said (and have essentially said before):
Quote:
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
Im not an expert, but this appears wrong. If the issue were that cut and dry, there couldnt even be a debate. And if you (or more relevantly, HRC who may not be subject to the same rules as all gov't employees) cant use private email for any goverment work -- period -- then why does 36 CFR 1236.22(b) provide a requirement that agencies preserve Federal Records sent or received "using a system not operated by the agency":
Quote:
(b) Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.
There wouldnt be a regulation for private email backup if private email wasnt allowed. Indeed, the linked WSJ article (hardly HRC fanboys), if correct, expressly contradicts what you were told:
Quote:
Federal laws and regulations on preserving government records only recently have begun to catch up with how U.S. officials communicate, a fact highlighted by the public stir over Hillary Clinton’s private email use as secretary of state.
The Federal Records Act requires government agencies to preserve records documenting the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions” of an agency’s business. But it was only last year that Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law with a series of modern-day changes to improve recordkeeping and preservation.
The 2014 overhaul, which postdates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, placed explicit limits on agency officials using private email accounts for official business. The new law said agency officials can’t create or send a government record on a private account unless they also copy or forward the email to their official government email address.
The National Archives and Records Administration in September 2013 issued guidance to federal agencies that said federal employees generally shouldn’t use personal email accounts to conduct official business, except in limited situations, such as during emergencies when an official may not be able to access an official account.
That 2013 guidance, which also postdated Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, replaced a 2008 memo on federal recordkeeping that didn’t specifically address email records.
The investigatio is going to look partisian and vindictive. THey may find some trangressions according to the letter of the law, for which the average person would consider any punishment unjust. She will gain sympathy and support.
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
So NY Times has changed title of the article and walked back their allegation
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - ( New Window )
why the investigation might be a good thing for HRC. You get the Justice Department investigating her, and assuming they don't lynch their own, she's given a clean bill of health and can say there was nothing to see here.
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
If I could, I would send you the online training course we were mandated to take every year on cybersecurity.
I dont doubt you were told in training that you cant use private email. But as clearly demonstrated in the sources I excerpted, that's simply not the law as it applied while HRC was SoS. Right?
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
She should've had an independent 3rd party determine what was valid. And (as the NYT reported) she did delete records pertinent to her position as SoS.
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
So if the IG of a John Kerry DOS refers a matter to Loretta Lynch's DOJ any significant finding would be a function of the bias of the investigators?
So is it Hillary or Saint Hillary?
RE: RE: RE: Whether there is an indictment is not important Â
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
RE: Can't see how HRC will be negatively affected. Â
The investigatio is going to look partisian and vindictive. THey may find some trangressions according to the letter of the law, for which the average person would consider any punishment unjust. She will gain sympathy and support.
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
SO, why don't you take this "anything goes" approach with every politician?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Whether there is an indictment is not important Â
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
Not sure I disagree, but we have talked about nuances in other threads. I'm not sure "you don't look fat in that dress" is the same thing as "give me all your money and as prince of Nigeria I will give it to you back ten-fold". I suppose reasonable people can disagree.
However, more often than not, I am like you and have fewer gray areas. As I have said many times on this site, I think Javert gets a raw deal. He is completely in the right.
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
it's more of a you just cannot make the statement that she only deleted what was about Bill and sent over what wasn't. I honestly don't think you would accept that if it was..not even a Republican..a non-political case.
I hear you and I understand what you are saying about the links to the article posted above.
All I can you is this: I had "Secret" clearance. We were not allowed to use personal e-mail for work business even with unclassified material. The reason? The security of the networks.
The problem for HRC is that much of her non-classified e-mail probably was so sensitive that it could or should have been classified. It's simply the nature of the position of Secretary of State. Almost every conversation she had about a foreign country was probably sensitive. (i.e., if she had an online conversation about Putin and the Ukraine or China's island creation in the South China Sea, etc.). It would be impossible for her to do her job without being able to have these types of online conversations.
The USG networks - as we have seen - are vulnerable too. But the private-sector ones are extremely vulnerable.
********
Again, as I said above. If you like HRC, this is a witch hunt. If you don't like her, the e-mail/server issue isn't really THE issue (though it's the one that I'm making a big deal out of). The issue for those who don't like her is they assume she erased the e-mails/server to cover up something. Either side isn't going to convince the other. But that's the dynamic at play here.
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
Er, I hope you know that every email you send or receive is stored on a server, not your PC. Even if you delete them, they still exist. That is why Clinton wanted her own server. She decided to combine her personal and work emails, so she has to turn all of them over.
And I am not allowed to use personal email for work purposes. And I don't have classified emails.
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
The OIG Memos - ( New Window )
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
Im not sure I understand the question. But my point actually comes from a different angle. Im a commercial litigator. Email preservation, review, and production is at the heart of what I do for a living. It's the best evidence ever. My point is this -- if you need to shred a one-off document you have, you can shred it and it's gone.
Need to secret an email you were on? Good. Fucking. Luck. Oh, I'll wipe my server, problem solved. But really wipe, since data recovery techniques are fairly effective. Oh, and devices -- gotta wipe your laptop, phone, tablet etc. And again, probably better to go Lindsey Graham on them because of data recovery. Problem solved? Nooooo. Everyone always forgets about backups. Gotta wipe the backups too (Im trying to purge some emails from my backup right now, and Im in week 5 of the ordeal). Ok, finally, my emails are deleted! Now I just have to find the person who sent me the email and destroy their server, phone, laptop, tablet, and backup tapes. I just hope they let me, and that there server/backups arent US government property and already sent to the archives. Email is like the herpes of evidence -- that shit is basically forever.
Buford: So because you cant use private email at your job...? Because HRC was decidedly allowed to do it at her job.
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
are cynical about Hillary and her emails is ass backwards. I understand being uncomfortable with her using her own server and personal email account for government business - I think even her supporters aren't willing to defend her on the decision to do that.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
You dont have to believe me. I linked the memos.
I don't think I have never not believed you. Not sure why you would say that. Don't agree with, don't understand, can't fathom your pov..yeah...but if you say it, I don't disbelieve it.
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
are cynical about Hillary and her emails is ass backwards. I understand being uncomfortable with her using her own server and personal email account for government business - I think even her supporters aren't willing to defend her on the decision to do that.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
She retained a lot of these e-mails on her server long after she left government. Now, you can say she just would have deleted them while she was in office. On the other hand, they might have been archived somewhere else in the DOS's system.
are cynical about Hillary and her emails is ass backwards. I understand being uncomfortable with her using her own server and personal email account for government business - I think even her supporters aren't willing to defend her on the decision to do that.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
We don't know what we don't know which is why having on ly one person in possession impedes everything. One thing we do know, which she may have wanted to keep hidden, is that her boss specifically instructed her to keep Blumenthal far away from gov't affairs and she failed to do so. She may have wanted top keep that hidden, not from public or Congress, but from her boss.
RE: RE: I just think that the logic of those who Â
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
Well I dont know what any agency/investigator has concluded that HRC's email conduct was totally legal. Just that these memos have nothing to do with an investigation like that.
I dont really understand the problem with the initial possession angle. As I posted above, using a personal email account was at the time completely legal. It was stupid and the law has changed, but legal at the time. So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
Maybe she mishandled emails. I dont know. But I havent seen any evidence of it. Just a bunch of people expressing best practices that were not the applicable law at the time. Oh, the horror.
Those who like HRC, think this is a witch hunt. Those who don't like her, think she is hiding something. You'll never change minds on this subject.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
What are the grounds? People flapping their arms in ignorance does not create grounds for a criminal investigation.
I think that considering 100% of her correspondence Â
was on a private account, it would not be out of line to investigate if there was classified material on it, since it's acknowledged that there is material that was classified after it was vetted when she released it. You say that they are not comparable but the investigation precedent is Petraeus.
The lines are, at a minimum: SoS receives and issues tons of classified correspondence. SoS uses private email for 100% of electronic correspondence. Former SoS self-selects what material to turn over to State (doing it under duress as well). Once material was actually collected and examined by State, a large amount was classified as being classified.
It's really some great conspiracy to want someone to look to see if there were other materials that were classified at the time?
So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
But the deletions occurred predominantly during or after 2014. At a minimum I'd like a little clarity as to what the rules were (law was) at the time of the deletions.
Does it prove HRC is unfit for office? Does it convince her supporters (I am not one) to switch to another candidate?
When in situations like this its not what you have but what you do with it. GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
Yes. What you're suggesting is to launch an investigation on a whim. Evidence of lawful conduct should not beget an investigation into whether unlawful conduct, maybe, just maybe, happened. What you're calling for is called a "fishing expedition". And probably an expensive one at that.
Moreover, I'd bet betting that government employees arent emailing around classified documents (pretty sure I've read that). Especially to outside email addresses. Classified and unclassified docs are just treated very separately. If that's right there would be no reason at all to believe that she was, just maybe, being emailed classified documents.
So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
But the deletions occurred predominantly during or after 2014. At a minimum I'd like a little clarity as to what the rules were (law was) at the time of the deletions.
This is just wack-a-mole from people who want to see her knocked out. X must be illegal, so investigate it! No, then Y, investigate that! Humf, no again. Well, Z it is!
Look, if she did something wrong Im sure it will be investigated. That's OIG's job. But people calling from the outside for investigations when they have no real idea what the facts are or what the applicable laws/regs were? Unhelpful. Fishing expeditions? Unhelpful.
RE: I think that considering 100% of her correspondence Â
was on a private account, it would not be out of line to investigate if there was classified material on it, since it's acknowledged that there is material that was classified after it was vetted when she released it. You say that they are not comparable but the investigation precedent is Petraeus.
The lines are, at a minimum: SoS receives and issues tons of classified correspondence. SoS uses private email for 100% of electronic correspondence. Former SoS self-selects what material to turn over to State (doing it under duress as well). Once material was actually collected and examined by State, a large amount was classified as being classified.
It's really some great conspiracy to want someone to look to see if there were other materials that were classified at the time?
Bill. You are correct. There needs to an investigation to provide an assessment of whether any classified information was compromised. It also about maintaining the integrity of the system and his is why the comparison to Petraeus is appropriate. You cannot excuse these unauthorized actions and expect the rest of the workforce to play by a different set of rules. That in the end is why Petraeus had to go.
I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
Does it prove HRC is unfit for office? Does it convince her supporters (I am not one) to switch to another candidate?
When in situations like this its not what you have but what you do with it. GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
This.
The problem with modern politics is that we live in an era where attacking is considered better than thinking and solving. Sound bite attacks small enough to fit the short news attention span and fit onto screens using bullet points next to a TV talking head is easier than trying to come up with policies and defend them.
I think that outside of the ideological zealots who appear to think, as some of the posts above show, that the world views news through thier ideological prism, most people will not remember or care about the alleged "scandals" surrounding Clinton, Walker, Perry or any other candidate when they vote. In fact, if one side rides the allegations too hard, it backfires.
The point of modern elections is to win the people in the middle who don't care about the "Inside Baseball" that consumes the radicalized wings of both parties. Things like email deletion and ordering underlings to fire people don't register with most people because these are things that they would not want to deal with either- they will vote for the person they like the most. If you come across as angry and aggressive, like most people, you will get ignored and lose.
Just focus on how you will help me, the common person, and you will win. Why can't modern political strategists in both parties figure this out?
RE: I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
RE: RE: I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
I dont agree that she has beaten the game. Every one of her farts gets investigated like she shot Kennedy. If there was shit to take her down, she'd be down.
RE: RE: RE: I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
I dont agree that she has beaten the game. Every one of her farts gets investigated like she shot Kennedy. If there was shit to take her down, she'd be down.
Just for my own personal interest and nothing to do with emails or her political aspirations, you truly believe her to be a fundamentally honest person?
RE: RE: I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
Oh? What was the other situation that she got out of by being a woman?
RE: RE: RE: I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
Just for my own personal interest and nothing to do with emails or her political aspirations, you truly believe her to be a fundamentally honest person?
Comparatively, yes. In practice I think everyone lies. We lie to ourselves and eachother hundreds of times a day. A significant number of us live in mental constructs that barely hold onto reality. Shit, the entire fitness club business model is premised on self-delusion. I sit in depositions and watch people lie for no earthly reason -- people who have nothing at all at stake in the case will just perjure themselves for no reason. And they'll tell you the sky is red, even after you show them a picture of the sky; maybe not a lie per se but the same symptom.
I'll say this -- when she speaks to a matter of policy, I find that she tends to be grounded in reality. Much less facts-to-fit-the-ideology than most politicians.
lying in depositions, but when you are sworn in under oath in court, people tell the truth( in most cases)
Depositions are under oath and videotaped. It's the same thing. And dont kid yourself about people not lying in court. Now, civil matters tend to settle or otherwise get disposed of during pre-trial stages. There is lying in civil trials all the time. Family court (divorce) is a cesspool of lies Im told by practitioners. Things are a little different in the criminal realm I think because DAs and AUSAs will prosecute people for lying in their trials (well, the ones who lie for the defense anyway).
and the Prosecutor made a point to tell me that perjury is a felony punishable by up to 7 years. I wondered how many people are sitting in jail for perjury?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I dont see what this has to do with HRC being a woman Â
I'll say this -- when she speaks to a matter of policy, I find that she tends to be grounded in reality. Much less facts-to-fit-the-ideology than most politicians.
That's funny to me because I think about this a lot and, especially after seeing clips of the president on Stewart and many of the other things I hear he (and Josh Earnest et al) say. I think both he and Hillary lie constantly..more so than any other (unindicted) politician that I can ever recall. (I'll admit some of that may be tinted by my differing ideology). But I see them as fundamentally different. Like Obama talking about the IRS the other night or Iran or keep you doctor or...pretty much everything, I see the lies to be to ensure his ideology (partly legacy but mostly sincere ideology) reaches fruition. An end justifies the glib means. If locking your own way of life in can be separated from personal gain, I see him seeing that it's okay to say whatever so long as he gets his way. With Hillary I see dishonesty but it's all in pursuit of ambition and not ideology.
Not sure I explained that distinction well, but that's my pov.
and there you have it. The doctor thing I can see as being a lie, was it intentional? could be, but tell me all the lies he has told? Weapons of Mass Destruction type lies that got people killed and set the Middle East on fire type lies
I think the distinction between what he said about the IRS Â
and the Prosecutor made a point to tell me that perjury is a felony punishable by up to 7 years. I wondered how many people are sitting in jail for perjury?
Almost nobody. And you dont get warnings like that in civil cases. And if you did it would be from someone's lawyer, and not a "prosecutor". Prosecutors are scarier than regular ole lawyers.
Civil perjury is not prosecuted. It's a non-secret among lawyers not named Stephen Gillers (my idiot ethics professor who gets his sneezes written up in the NY Times). There was actually some interesting discussion about this during the Clinton era. I think people found like a dozen or so perjury prosecutions stemming from federal civil cases. Ever.
criminal case. 24 people with legal pads hanging on to my every word and asking some of the dumbest questions I ever heard in my life. I was definatly warned by the ADA
are relatively honest when they speak on policy matters and issues that are important to them. For two people who have been in the public eye and under the microscope for as long as they each have been, I've seen very few instances of them getting caught in a verifiable lie or contradicting themselves. But of course, no one is ever completely honest all the time, especially not politicians. You can only really judge these people on their words and their actions, and just hope that theres no intent to deceive.
I think it's all about lenses. I see the world through a lens closer to Hillary and Obama, so their explanations are cogent to me whereas to you they're lies or at least lies of omission. And the reverse is probably true with respect to some politician you generally agree with -- Im probably bound to think they're full of shit.
So you could say that politician's spin is a lie, or his failure to acknowledge X is a lie. And by some definition sure. But in reality (IMO at least), that's just ignoring how the human mind functions. In the mind of the speaker, they're being honest. Most of the time at least.
are relatively honest when they speak on policy matters and issues that are important to them. For two people who have been in the public eye and under the microscope for as long as they each have been, I've seen very few instances of them getting caught in a verifiable lie or contradicting themselves. But of course, no one is ever completely honest all the time, especially not politicians. You can only really judge these people on their words and their actions, and just hope that theres no intent to deceive.
Seriously? They were both defining marriage as between a man and a woman until it was politically expedient to. And let's not get started on 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan....'
I think what drives all of this to a large extent is being comfortable with ourselves. On ideology, it touches our sense of morality so at the extremes we see those who view life the same or opposite as good and evil.
On the honesty, I think most of us believe rightly or wrongly, that we are ourselves honest. Someone we admire or someone who shares our ideology or party cannot be dishonest and have us support them because then we might have to question our honesty. So we do filter.
Having said that, I still think Hillary is different in this respect and I do think that this will be a moral conundrum for Democrats next November. And, as I said before, I think it's an interesting societal/cultural question on prioritizing different values and virtues for us all. Beyond the politics, I do think this is a real pivot point for us culturally.
done by someone who has never done anything of note. I don't know what
you base accomplishments on buford but listening to talk radio 24x7 and regurgitating it here is probably your biggest accomplishment in life
The script is always the same. The scandal that will finally take Hillary down. Ignorance of fact and law, pivot, pivot, pivot and then when no one can pin down wrongful conduct, you get the argument that she's just dishonest.
but it is effective, look at her recently favorable, unfavorable poll numbers. They wil keep hammering away regardless if there is anything substative
It's working, why stop?
I'm not saying this in defense of this whole mess (I'm astonished people as clever at the Clinton's were foolish enough to run a private server) but was HRC really subject to employee training? For contractors, low and mid level employees, sure they are required to take that training. I don't really see the Secretary of State or top level staff slotting 60 minutes on her calendar to watch some power point slides.
This type of stuff won't stick because her hardcore base will never leave her. For god's sakes I have family members who are life long democrats that voted for McCain in 2008 because they couldn't get over the fact Obama beat her. Her hardcore mark re rabid for her and no matter what the story or controversy is it does not matter. They will not abandon her.
are relatively honest when they speak on policy matters and issues that are important to them. For two people who have been in the public eye and under the microscope for as long as they each have been, I've seen very few instances of them getting caught in a verifiable lie or contradicting themselves. But of course, no one is ever completely honest all the time, especially not politicians. You can only really judge these people on their words and their actions, and just hope that theres no intent to deceive.
This type of stuff won't stick because her hardcore base will never leave her. For god's sakes I have family members who are life long democrats that voted for McCain in 2008 because they couldn't get over the fact Obama beat her. Her hardcore mark re rabid for her and no matter what the story or controversy is it does not matter. They will not abandon her.
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and that is all they got on Obama, you try to ask what else they got that he "lied" about? and they stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and jump up and down yelling nananananana! Obama lies? Really? Tell me his lies?
well, of course it is easy to say 'they got nothing' Â
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" and that is all they got on Obama, you try to ask what else they got that he "lied" about? and they stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and jump up and down yelling nananananana! Obama lies? Really? Tell me his lies?
In all of the domestic and foreign policy issues of the last seven years, you think the only time the Administration has deceived Americans is the doctors comment?
I rip Republican politicians all of the time as do my Democratic and Republican friends. But I don't know many Democrats who will rip their politicians. I find this strange.
know this is what they will hear for the next 15 months Benghazi, emails, Vince Foster, Whitewater and it is all white noise that no one cares about. She will talk issues that matter to he supporters, they will cheer her, they will vote for her, they will elect her President, they will go to her Inaugural Address.
I dont see why the enthusiasm for her. I just dont. Now I dont agree that media should paint her out worse than what she is. I dont agree with witch hunts on her either.
But as a candidate, she has absolutely 0 appeal to me. And people will go through the grind of defending her as if she is the 2nd coming (not mentioning anyone here, just a generalization). She may win, but if she is the best candidate Democrats can offer..... you will see Republican presidents sooner than we think.
just give specifics, don't rely on your gut feeling or sense that he lied. Lay them out if you accuse him of lying. I get that politically you are 180 degrees from Obama, but to call the man a liar, back it up
but it is effective, look at her recently favorable, unfavorable poll numbers. They wil keep hammering away regardless if there is anything substative
It's working, why stop?
Hillary is her own worse enemy. Stop blaming the media. She could have avoided all of this by not having her own server and then deleting the emails when it looked like they could have been subpoenaed. She sets herself up every time.
know this is what they will hear for the next 15 months Benghazi, emails, Vince Foster, Whitewater and it is all white noise that no one cares about. She will talk issues that matter to he supporters, they will cheer her, they will vote for her, they will elect her President, they will go to her Inaugural Address.
are there really Republicans talking about Fince a Foster and Whitewater? The only people I see bringing them up are Democrats.
As great of a politician as Bill is that is as bad as Hillary is, but what people see in her is as much as Bill Clinton knew more than anyone I the room about any issue, Hillary is smarter and more knowledgeable than Bill. Bill will be the first one to admit it. She is off putting, but she is brilliant
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
Exactly.
fwiw, the IG people came out this afternoon and said they are asking for a security investigation and not a criminal investigation. They said the referred it to DOJ for them to decide...only DoJ can do a criminal investigation. So NYT is indeed wrong on that.
The IG also specifically said that the classified materials in the emails was *not* retroactively classified but was classified at its inception.
Is watching this play out as a Clinton would. All the attacks are early. Non of them stick with anyone except those who were never going to vote for her anyway.
Then sometime next summer a story starts somewhere that no one has been more abused than this woman. How it's because she is a woman. Suffering for the hate of people for Bill. How it hurts her grand children and daughter deeply.
Like wildfire women who worked for the Republican candidate were fired or paid less. Within a news cycle the story is the other guy treats women like second class citizens. Makes their life harder. Wants to make laws to make it harder on women.
Then he has to answer that storm...which HRC never says anything. It's a third rail...guaranteed not to have a perfect answer to the charge ...When did you stop hating women?
Women are 54% of the vote and a higher percent of who votes.
Slime that is right as rain but does not knock out a first time symbol is a two edged sword.
Is watching this play out as a Clinton would. All the attacks are early. Non of them stick with anyone except those who were never going to vote for her anyway.
Then sometime next summer a story starts somewhere that no one has been more abused than this woman. How it's because she is a woman. Suffering for the hate of people for Bill. How it hurts her grand children and daughter deeply.
Like wildfire women who worked for the Republican candidate were fired or paid less. Within a news cycle the story is the other guy treats women like second class citizens. Makes their life harder. Wants to make laws to make it harder on women.
Then he has to answer that storm...which HRC never says anything. It's a third rail...guaranteed not to have a perfect answer to the charge ...When did you stop hating women?
Women are 54% of the vote and a higher percent of who votes.
Slime that is right as rain but does not knock out a first time symbol is a two edged sword.
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
Exactly.
fwiw, the IG people came out this afternoon and said they are asking for a security investigation and not a criminal investigation. They said the referred it to DOJ for them to decide...only DoJ can do a criminal investigation. So NYT is indeed wrong on that.
The IG also specifically said that the classified materials in the emails was *not* retroactively classified but was classified at its inception.
The IG letter doesnt say anything about referring for an investigation or DOJ deciding etc. It was merely a notification to security officials that CI may exist in repositories not controlled by the government. It also makes clear that the CIs contain no CI markings or dissemination control markings.
If he hadnt run. Like if he was a first time candidate. 2004 was a disaster for him in regards to a presidency.
the entire election would be on the Iran deal, so you have to look at what the latest polls say. They were against him earlier but I don't know what they are now. I'm pretty sure he'd lose the entire Jewish voting block and that's usually a given.
He campaigned on being the most transparent President...even his supporters will admit this has been one of the least transparent Administrations in memory. The obstrufication on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, AP phone and James Rosen scandals, etc.
He campaigned that deficit reduction was important to him.
The stimulus package was largely wasted but the Administration still credits it for the current economic "recovery." Where did the "shovel ready" projects go? Cash for clunkers? The many Solyndra-type fiascos.
Disingenuous at best about the true state of unemployment (not counting the people who stopped looking for work, real workforce participation number, underemployed part-time workers).
His biggest legacy item...Obamacare... you can keep your doctor and medical plan...premiums and deductibles will decrease. They have postponed the most distasteful elements of the program (employer mandate) until after the election.
He campaigned on financial reform but his financial reform bill was hollow.
He has been completely disingenuous at best regarding his commitment to border security.
He tells Americans that global warming is the #1 national security threat.
For who knows what reason, he won't label our Islamic extremists enemies for what they are. Fort Hood being the most egregious example domestically, but the Administration for some reason continues to downplay the foreign threat.
Administration officials have now admitted they knew what the Benghazi attacks were when they happened. That wasn't revealed publicly until after the election.
The reality of the Iran deal does not match pre-deal rhetoric.
His rhetoric on Israel doesn't match the Administration's actions.
Has repeatedly changed his position on gay marriage.
*********
Look, we have different political views. And you are completely entitled to your opinions and views. The American system works because citizens can peacefully disagree.
The point of this post is not to slam the man you support or attempt to change your mind, but merely respond to your question about what deceptions?
Things that you run on that don't come to pass because of a congress that says No to everything he proposes and that makes Obama a liar? You can call him a failed politician, but a liar without lies isn't a liar.
I would also contend that he never really made much of an effort to work with Congress. Even Democratic congressmen and congresswomen have alluded to the White House's poor track record of Congressional outreach. Congress seems to be an inconvenience. But he campaigned on the opposite.
he hates working with his own party and they are not carrying his water. He feels he is above the fray and knows what's best but just won't deal with Congress. He is aloof, thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and has a nasty temper. Having said all that, the one thing he is not is a liar
he hates working with his own party and they are not carrying his water. He feels he is above the fray and knows what's best but just won't deal with Congress. He is aloof, thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and has a nasty temper. Having said all that, the one thing he is not is a liar
I think this is true and it is unfortunate for him and the country. He was such a great campaigner, but for some reason that skill didn't translate to dealing with Congress. I also don't think he has communicated his views very well to the country on things he is right about. Strange. He dealt with the press well during the elections, but not when in office.
as a model at the time, eventually failed, how does that make Obama a liar. A bad stock picker maybe, but a liar. Now it's Obama who personally calculates the employment numbers and he is skewing them, is that what you are accusing him of?
as a model at the time, eventually failed, how does that make Obama a liar. A bad stock picker maybe, but a liar. Now it's Obama who personally calculates the employment numbers and he is skewing them, is that what you are accusing him of?
Nope. But you looked at Eric's list and said that's all Congress fault. I'm trying to figure out where Congress played a role in those things.
Obama has failed 50 percent of the country. I'm not his cheerleader, he is tone deaf, egotistical , refuse to work with the other houses. He is a lone wolf. The policies that he has made law you might think will hurt the country and I'm not arguing that. What I am saying he believes his vision for America is the right vision, he was elected twice. You can call him misguided, but to call the man a liar and not cite lies that came out of his mouth in not right
as a model at the time, eventually failed, how does that make Obama a liar. A bad stock picker maybe, but a liar. Now it's Obama who personally calculates the employment numbers and he is skewing them, is that what you are accusing him of?
Because he and his supporters have dramatically over-played the recovery. The economy is still in really bad shape. The problem is that wages have stagnated and there has not been enough "good" jobs created. The country is facing a really bad situation where only half the country is paying taxes and that number is going to get worse. You can't pay for all of the government programs when your tax base is shrinking while your expenditures increase.
Both the Republicans and Democrats had hidden the true state of the economy by zero interest rate policies that have fueled the stock market (and exacerbated the wealth gap that the left criticizes).
The flood of immigrants are also putting downward pressure on wages. Bureau of Labor Statistics says the labor participation fate for 18-21 year olds is now only 33 percent. Immigration is also cause government expenditures to increase (federal and local).
Obama has failed 50 percent of the country. I'm not his cheerleader, he is tone deaf, egotistical , refuse to work with the other houses. He is a lone wolf. The policies that he has made law you might think will hurt the country and I'm not arguing that. What I am saying he believes his vision for America is the right vision, he was elected twice. You can call him misguided, but to call the man a liar and not cite lies that came out of his mouth in not right
Thing you have to know about me is I grew up a liberal in a house of liberals. My mom and I still argue every week about all of this stuff.
he hates working with his own party and they are not carrying his water. He feels he is above the fray and knows what's best but just won't deal with Congress. He is aloof, thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and has a nasty temper. Having said all that, the one thing he is not is a liar
as a model at the time, eventually failed, how does that make Obama a liar. A bad stock picker maybe, but a liar. Now it's Obama who personally calculates the employment numbers and he is skewing them, is that what you are accusing him of?
That company was in trouble before they got the stimulus money and the WH knew it. The Dept of Energy knew it. But the owner was an Obama donor so.....
instructed the IRS to target conservatives. When to the impeachment proceedings start? That is grounds for dumping him. Where are the memos of the president ordering the head of the IRS to target conservatives?
Is watching this play out as a Clinton would. All the attacks are early. Non of them stick with anyone except those who were never going to vote for her anyway.
Then sometime next summer a story starts somewhere that no one has been more abused than this woman. How it's because she is a woman. Suffering for the hate of people for Bill. How it hurts her grand children and daughter deeply.
Like wildfire women who worked for the Republican candidate were fired or paid less. Within a news cycle the story is the other guy treats women like second class citizens. Makes their life harder. Wants to make laws to make it harder on women.
Then he has to answer that storm...which HRC never says anything. It's a third rail...guaranteed not to have a perfect answer to the charge ...When did you stop hating women?
Women are 54% of the vote and a higher percent of who votes.
Slime that is right as rain but does not knock out a first time symbol is a two edged sword.
You have no idea how much this irks me. She's supposed to be good for women, yet she plays the poor damsel in distress card every time. It's sickening.
instructed the IRS to target conservatives. When to the impeachment proceedings start? That is grounds for dumping him. Where are the memos of the president ordering the head of the IRS to target conservatives?
I didn't say he instructed anyone; who knows.
I said that he said that targeting did not happen.
Obama has failed 50 percent of the country. I'm not his cheerleader, he is tone deaf, egotistical , refuse to work with the other houses. He is a lone wolf. The policies that he has made law you might think will hurt the country and I'm not arguing that. What I am saying he believes his vision for America is the right vision, he was elected twice. You can call him misguided, but to call the man a liar and not cite lies that came out of his mouth in not right
Thing you have to know about me is I grew up a liberal in a house of liberals. My mom and I still argue every week about all of this stuff.
Me too. My trips home are usually full of arguments. My older sister is now a full fledged communist who loves DeBlasio and Warren. But she's an academic, what do you expect?
What were the words from Ibama's mouth that he knowingly lied to the American people on Benghazi. The exact word that were the lie
This is ridiculous. He and Clinton blamed the video. Even after they knew that was wrong. He went on the View of all places and said that after it was already known that it wasn't because of the video. And that debate, when the then claimed he called it a terrorist attack when he said at the time it was because of a video. He and Clinton APOLOGIZED for the video.
they lie to further their agenda or personal gain. They both have the same playbook. Attack anyone who threatens your agenda or power and lie to get what you want and then pretend that anyone who calls you on it is some right wing kook. And HH is one of their useful idiots.
Obama was accused of lying about Solyndra. What are the words that formed the lie from his mouth? I'm spinning? No I am asking for the actual words that he lied with
how did he lie about unemployment figures? It's my understanding that the same methodology has been used for decades. You can argue that it's underreported and should be changed. But not a lie.
instructed the IRS to target conservatives. When to the impeachment proceedings start? That is grounds for dumping him. Where are the memos of the president ordering the head of the IRS to target conservatives?
I have a negative view of the man so I don't think you want to know my answer here. But regardless, he should have ordered Holder to launch a real investigation.
Don't you find it odd that in most of these scandals the e-mails keep permanently disappearing? How does an e-mail disappear? At my agency, everything was backed up regularly (e-mails, files) I still can't fathom how any department can seriously claim the e-mails are gone.
You can't answer a question so you deflect and make believe the question was never asked. You're this gasbag that when you get called to defend a statement you make, you can't , you only parrot talk radio you don't have to think, they do it for you. But when you are asked to defend what you parrot you fold like a broken accordion
how did he lie about unemployment figures? It's my understanding that the same methodology has been used for decades. You can argue that it's underreported and should be changed. But not a lie.
It's a lie if anyone does it. Republican or Democrat. Not saying Obama is alone in this. But I was asked about how he has lied (I'd prefer to use the word disingenuous).
If you said he bungled Fast & Furious, he mishandled getting the story of Benghazi out in a timely manner, I'd agree that he botched it, but bitching it isn't lying about it
He attributed the attack to the video. At the UN he cited the video and spoke about Chris Stevens in depth but included Benghazi along with other violence that was more due to the video.
But I'm also incredulous that you would separate what susan rice or josh Ernest or Jay carney say from Obama.
If you said he bungled Fast & Furious, he mishandled getting the story of Benghazi out in a timely manner, I'd agree that he botched it, but bitching it isn't lying about it
Yes, I believe he has deliberately deceived the American public. You asked me to provide some examples and I did. You don't think those are legitimate examples. I do. We'll have to leave it at that. We're not going to change each other's minds on this.
You can't answer a question so you deflect and make believe the question was never asked. You're this gasbag that when you get called to defend a statement you make, you can't , you only parrot talk radio you don't have to think, they do it for you. But when you are asked to defend what you parrot you fold like a broken accordion
Please keep track of the posts. I didn't say that Obama lied directly about Solyndra. Definitely misrepresented what happened or what would happen since he had to know that Solyndra was in deep trouble.
I was mainly responding to your characterization of Solyndra and how everything happened. Which you had 100% wrong.
he is their boss. Did they bungle the roll out of the story, the Three Stooges would be proud. That isn't the issue, the issue is the President is a liar. You just have to provide the lies from his mouth and you are right and I am wrong. So give me his exact lie
he is their boss. Did they bungle the roll out of the story, the Three Stooges would be proud. That isn't the issue, the issue is the President is a liar. You just have to provide the lies from his mouth and you are right and I am wrong. So give me his exact lie
We have many times.
RE: Is he responsible for what they say? Absolutely Â
he is their boss. Did they bungle the roll out of the story, the Three Stooges would be proud. That isn't the issue, the issue is the President is a liar. You just have to provide the lies from his mouth and you are right and I am wrong. So give me his exact lie
I think at this point I'll just echo Eric's last post
from Barack Obama that is a willful lie. Not 1, yet you think you have proved many. I'd love to know your SAT reading comprehension scores
He and his senior officials have made plenty of false statements on most if not all of the few items I listed. I'm not going to hunt down the quotes but there are plenty both during the two presidential campaigns and after them when in office.
You asked. I answered. You don't agree with my answer.
he really wants a single payer nationalized health care system. But he won't say it.
There is no doubt that if he had the votes, which he didn't, we'd have a single payer system today. He took what he could get and paved the way for single payer in the future.
keep in mind, he had a super-majority in Congress the first two years of his Administration.
That's actually not true. Democrats had a super-majority for only 7 weeks of Obama's presidency, up until the point Ted Kennedy died.
That's news to me. Did they have a majority? (I'm pretty sure the Democrats controlled both houses for the first two years).
If you ask me, Obama has potentially sabotaged himself by not laying a better foundation with Congress throughout his Presidency.
The old health care system was broken. Something had to change. If the Administration had thrown the Republicans a few bones on tort reform and cross-state competition, you would have had some bilateral support. There would be a vested interest in Obamacare moving forward (or fixing it if there were problems). Now, I think it survives if HRC wins. It will become institutionalized. But if she loses, it may disappear. Big risk by Obama.
Same story with Iran deal. The way he is handling this if the Republicans win, while the UN sanctions will be permanently gone, the U.S. sanctions and hard feelings may return very quickly.
You have to build bipartisan support on big ticket stuff to have vested interest in its survival.
instructed the IRS to target conservatives. When to the impeachment proceedings start? That is grounds for dumping him.
The Congress doesn't have the balls to impreach the first Black President and Obama knows that, as does any politically savvy person over the age of 9.
he really wants a single payer nationalized health care system. But he won't say it.
There is no doubt that if he had the votes, which he didn't, we'd have a single payer system today. He took what he could get and paved the way for single payer in the future.
Isn't he being disingenuous by not saying that?
It's the same way Republicans who say they are pro life have no real intention of overturning Roe v. Wade.
As I said to Headhunter, I'll make a Republican list too. But let's not act like Obama is some sort of saint.
But the idea that they had a super-majority for 2 years is a myth. Republicans in Congress wouldn't have been able to break the record for most filibusters in a session if they did.
he really wants a single payer nationalized health care system. But he won't say it.
There is no doubt that if he had the votes, which he didn't, we'd have a single payer system today. He took what he could get and paved the way for single payer in the future.
Isn't he being disingenuous by not saying that?
It's the same way Republicans who say they are pro life have no real intention of overturning Roe v. Wade.
As I said to Headhunter, I'll make a Republican list too. But let's not act like Obama is some sort of saint.
Of course he's being disingenuous. Like he was when he said you can keep your doctor. Or when he said marriage should be something between a man and a woman. There actually are some R's who would overturn Roe-Wade, but not many
But the idea that they had a super-majority for 2 years is a myth. Republicans in Congress wouldn't have been able to break the record for most filibusters in a session if they did.
Thanks. But with both houses, I have a hard time accepting an argument that Congress was the problem. If anything, the Congress has surrendered more Constitutional authority to the White House and the Supreme Court than ever before. It's become a pretty impotent organization. Not good.
What bugs me most is it seems that Europe has become the role model we should aspire to. This country was ultimately founded by people trying to get away from that screwed up continent. Now it's some sort of model?
I am of the persuasion that we are the model. Do we have our problems? You bet. But moving towards socialism isn't the answer. It sounds great, but it doesn't work. And the long-term fiscal viability of even the lesser social democracy models in Europe is in question (not just Greece).
There was an article in Politico earlier this month that said if the United States could simply get rid of the South, we could finally become more European. It was a nauseating read.
But the idea that they had a super-majority for 2 years is a myth. Republicans in Congress wouldn't have been able to break the record for most filibusters in a session if they did.
Reed could have just had the vote to stop filibusters then. Problem solved.
I'm not even sure what socialism means these days Â
Not that it matters, I guess. I'm an eclectic: neither conservative nor liberal, nor even a centrist; I would address each issue based on its own merits and the budget at the time. On foreign policy my approach is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
What bugs me most is it seems that Europe has become the role model we should aspire to. This country was ultimately founded by people trying to get away from that screwed up continent. Now it's some sort of model?
I am of the persuasion that we are the model. Do we have our problems? You bet. But moving towards socialism isn't the answer. It sounds great, but it doesn't work. And the long-term fiscal viability of even the lesser social democracy models in Europe is in question (not just Greece).
There was an article in Politico earlier this month that said if the United States could simply get rid of the South, we could finally become more European. It was a nauseating read.
I don't think that just getting rid of the South would do it. We'd have to get rid of fly-over country also. Actually just keep NE, the West coast and WI, MI and PA. Socialist college football would mostly suck
The old health care system was broken. Something had to change. If the Administration had thrown the Republicans a few bones on tort reform and cross-state competition, you would have had some bilateral support.
Eric you are talking about a party that had its leaders meet as He and Michelle were dancing at inaugural balls and decided their #1 goal was to block every last policy initiative that Obama proposed. Do you honestly think one Republican was voting for the affordable care act in any form whatsoever? If you think so I have some ocean front property in North Dakota to sell you. What the hell else did they have to do? They adopted the Romney Care Heritage foundation healthcare plan. Come on you are smarter than that.
I am not informed enough on global warming to weigh in intelligently in either direction. All I know is there is conflicting information. (For example, global temperatures have not risen for the last 20 years, some scientists argue that decreased sun spot activity is actually pointing towards global cooling, etc.).
I've long thought it was stupid for Republicans to appear to be anti-environmental... after all, reducing pollution is a good thing. And while regulation can hurt business, it can also help to create new industries as long as the regulations are not too onerous.
But global warming is not the #1 national security threat. If you believe that, you're watching too much MSNBC.
MSNBC doesn't talk really about climate either as far as I know, but I don't watch their super left talking head primetime shows.
Climate is woefully under reported from all mainstream outlets, and as I said, I see the issue as Obama's biggest failure.
Now, to be fair, Climate is not the #1 national security issue. (I actually think cyber security is the biggest threat). However, when the most populous state in the Union is facing a drought of biblical proportions, yeah that's a huge security issue. We are talking about 60% of the state classified as extreme drought or worse. A water deficit of 12 trillion gallons. Billions in negative economic impact. If 38 million people suddenly find their faucets running dry, that's a more frightening proposition than Islamic extremists or Russian despots thousands of miles away. It's not some quirk of the weather causing this, it's a rapidly deteriorating climate. That's my opinion, though.
As for the science, people need to get real. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at critical levels today. The doomsday number of 450 million parts per million will be reached in 20 years at the current emission rate. This is real scary shit.
from Barack Obama that is a willful lie. Not 1, yet you think you have proved many.
Obama lied when he said that Americans who were happy with their current health insurance policy would be able to maintain it under Obamacare....
Quote:
"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
And he lied when he told Armenian-Americans that as President he would call the Armenian genocide what it was, a genocide....
Quote:
"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
back to If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. that did come out of his mouth. But that seems to give cover to saying he is a liar and he has told lies. I'm asking for other 'lies" from his mouth because lies is a plural.
Imho it's more of an indication of deceptiveness that these "leaders" are clever and careful enough not to lie in the legal sense yet morally ungrounded enough to deceive and evade. To be blunt that's one trait of a sociopath. I am not sure that the job does not require such....but then again why did the greats not have to do that. ...Lincoln...TR...Jackson...Washington...Adams.
Much like the old saying about slowly increasing the temperature deceives a frog to complacency until boiled where as dropping a frog into a stew of lies gives him the opportunity to jump out of danger. ...I think the American experience since Eisenhower has us boiled and America hollow husk of Americana.
Separately...I don't think the nation is remotely becoming socialist. I think it is economic fascism...and that drift happened under Clinton Bush Obama.
And I think the fact that too many citizens don't know the difference between the two allows fascism to grow while we object to second tier signals of things that look like socialism.
as a liar for "Read my lips, no new taxes" He felt it to be true when he said it, turns out things changed. I believe that Obama believed it at the time and did not willfully lie to the american public. I'm sure i'm going to see that I am naive, I'm a homer, or whatever, but flame away, it's what I believe
That's a fair point HH. One cannot do the right thing as the fact base of dynamic situations change and be consistent with prior assumed realities. True for all leaders.
But that is also easy to just say to the public as the rationale.
Imho....they all assume the electorate is stupid and has to be maneuvered and "over guided". A common trait signal of nations and organizations with elitists at the top.
And to tie to an earlier point ....elitism does not go hand in hand with socialism...it goes hand in hand with economic fascism
back to If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. that did come out of his mouth. But that seems to give cover to saying he is a liar and he has told lies. I'm asking for other 'lies" from his mouth because lies is a plural.
It's a lie because they knew it was untrue when it was stated. It's a lie because it was deliberately told to get the bill passed. It's a lie because Obama doesn't care if you keep your doctor or your plan or save $2500 a year. All he cares about is pushing his agenda. Whether you like it or not, if it's good or not or will be successful or not. He's a dishonest person, he has no integrity and he's proven that time and time again.
That's a fair point HH. One cannot do the right thing as the fact base of dynamic situations change and be consistent with prior assumed realities. True for all leaders.
But that is also easy to just say to the public as the rationale.
Imho....they all assume the electorate is stupid and has to be maneuvered and "over guided". A common trait signal of nations and organizations with elitists at the top.
And to tie to an earlier point ....elitism does not go hand in hand with socialism...it goes hand in hand with economic fascism
Agree Bill. There is a cartel of Politicians, Lobbyists and Big Business who are running the country for their benefit.
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
I am not even that much of a fan. But if you have in your mind that the stimulus was a bad thing, you aren't dealing in reality. Go see the attached link.
is whether Obama is a liar. The answer is yes but probably within the norm of politicians. This is unlike Hillary who goes beyond this and is a compulsive or pathological liar.
knows you don't lie it comes back to bite you in the ass at some point in the deal. But you exploit the gray area to the max, you withhold information that was not requested that you know will hurt the sale. Politicians are Masters
at this, the good ones are
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
There is a study made of all the States of the Union since 1960 and what themes or lines of policy most received standing ovations from Congress during the address.
The answer has been clear by a wide margin:
Statements of ringingly delivered clear oxymorons. Like:
" we must go all out in the pursuit of peace but do all our military needs in the meantime"
Or:
We must make it a national mission to reach much higher revolutionary new national standards for education of our young people but leave it to our existing experts at the local level"
that kind of pablum gets both sides of the aisles standing and cheering.
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
So you know all those who lost their insurance had insurance that was not insurance. Another lie. Unlike you I will try to be non-partisan on this. It is perfectly clear to anyone who listens with an open mind there were winners and losers. Some got better insurance but some who had perfectly good plans are paying much more, have increased deductibles and/or less choice of doctors. Unlike you I do not pretend to know the value of someone's old plan better than they do. That is just a talking point to justify a lie. In any case I reject the point that the government always knows better than the individual as you obviously will if a Republican gets in office.
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
In concept most of these were suppose to have been Grandfathered in. However, the Presidents message should have been nuanced. We can argue that people don't pay attention unless the message can fit on a bumper sticker or would only confuse, but in truth you have to concede the President lied by omission.
Your policy was suppose to have been Grandfathered, if the insurance company had not made changes making it worse as of 2010 and you had the policy for at least a year. The Adminstration hurt themselves when the rules were written by to narrowly defining whats a change. For example, if there was a minimal increase in co-pay, it was excluded. Whether the President was aware who knows? But clearly would have known policies were not going to make the cut.
There also was never any mention that insurance companies may chose to cancel because they were not going to be able to offer these policies to new buyers. Insurances Co. clearly took advantage. It was to their economic benefit. Better PR, blame it on Obamacare than cancel later. Obviously, the President couldn't control companies in this regard, but would know it would happen.
of a national policy because Bill in UT has maternity insurance and dental insurance and he has no teeth. Yep, scrap the whole thing because of over overage for some
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
As I said. Some winners. Some losers or "loosers" since this is the internet.
of a national policy because Bill in UT has maternity insurance and dental insurance and he has no teeth. Yep, scrap the whole thing because of over overage for some
Who said that here?
The Bottom Line is there is a difference with her lying and Obama Â
Saying your premiums will go down because of a political argument to pass a bill and providing proof how it will do that is not the same with what the Clintons did. Projections are different from knowing the truth. The Clintons lie when the answer is X and they know it is X, but they will say Y. Just like "I didn't sleep with that women" or that Mark Rich, a fugitive, deserved a pardon.
I am not a republican or democrat, I vote on the candidate. But, HRC has been a compulsive and pathological liar about getting caught her entire career. Whether it was with that commodities deal, the travelgate nonsense, the papers from Whitewater mysteriously disappearing and the reappearing in the White House, "the vast right wing conspiracy," being under Sniper Fire in Bosnia (which was the same things Brian Williams did) to now this. And, I am sure I missed a few things. With this new thing, she has lied repeatedly from the private server because she didn't like carrying to devices, to not being subpoenaed, to saying she didn't solicit emails from Blumenthal (which there is proof she did), to saying she didn't pass along classified information. they surveyed 40 emails and found four instances of classified information. Who know how many more they will find.
I am sure the democrats can find a better candidate, who in the words of William Safire, is not a "congenital liar"
that he lied about this. The discussion here seems to have turned to the fallback position of if it was OK to lie about it.
The whole conversation has twisted. Originally HH just wanted lies and now it's a Big Brother justification of lies...I guess to say it's not really a lie.
Beyond that, we mentioned other lies, which he won't accept and we mentioned a myriad of lies by people who speak for him, which I'm still agog that he thinks that's somehow different. And that's after saying the lies were b cause it's Congress's fault.
But, I agree with the point about it being different than HRC. I said before, I think Obama lies so that h can force his ideological ends and make people think bad stuff is really cool stuff. Whereas, HRC lies purely to further her personal ambition.
All of us are going to believe (or disbelieve) what we want, what makes us feel good...totally disconnected from what is actually real. We live in a world of law, not science..
and at the end of the day, I want them to be proud of their president. Whether I agree with Obama or not, he is basically a good man who is doing his best for this country. Whether you agreed with ACA or not, I truly believe he thought it best for America. The same with George W. Bush, while he might not have been the smartest man or whether I agreed with him or not, I think he was a decent man who tried to the best he could for America. Whether you agreed with the wars or not, I truly believed he thought he was doing the best for American.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are truly about themselves. One day, they will be the cheerleaders for Wall Street if it will get money or a vote, the next day they will burn Wall Street if it will get them a vote. They are shameless and are in the game to be in the game, not to help American.
Hillary is basically running against everything she helped create in the 90s, Welfare reform, the criminal justice bill, DOMA, repealing Glass-Steagal, and the list goes on and on. The Clintons have no shame and now pretend to be the biggest cheerleaders for the other sides of things they passed in the 90s. It is disgraceful. I really hope the Dems can get another candidate, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore, Joe Biden. But, please, no Hillary.
nice tap dance, very nice. Now give me the lies that came out of his mouth before you go back to tap dancing.
I gave you his interview on Jon Stewart where he said unequivocally that no conservative groups were treated differently by the IRS which is directly contradicted by a Congressional committee, a judge, and the head of the IRS, but you dismissed that. I brought up his UN and other speeches on Benghazi as well as responses by Carney and Rice linking the attack to a video but you dismissed that. On Iran among other things Ernest specifically said anytime, anywhere for inspections.
and apologized for being misleading on the subject. Can't really say the same for most other politicians who get caught willfully telling lies to people.
Quote:
"We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he said.
Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.
In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. "There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate," he said. "It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient."
By the way, not that it is a justification, but the estimate is that only 2% of people who were insured couldn't get their old plans grandfathered in after the full policy took effect and the higher standards were set in place.
slang; calling one "weak sauce" compares said individual to the "mild" sauce found at Taco Bell; weak, insignificant, attempting to be like the other hot sauces, but not living up to expectations.
information you have is a lot different then intent to deceive. If you say he knowingly lied and can't produce those lies other than everyone know he lies is very weak sauce indeed.
In simple everyday American know it see it...looks like a duck and quacks like a duck is likely a duck ( much like the hunches you believe in when you make hiring recommendations ...but do not know with proof)....what does the vast majority of people call the following:
Mis representations?
Deceptions?
Vital incompleteness?
Answering the precise question and not the spirit of the question?
Deflecting the answer?
Answering a different question than what was asked and relaying on deference for ones position to not get a tight follow up question to a non answer?
Bullshit?
Whats the person who uses all of the above called in everyday plain spoken insight?
Deceiving?
Ok so Presidents don't lie ( except Nixon) in a way that is on record. So you are happy with deception from a position you depend on.... as long as you cannot find a blatant and deliberate lie?
We do agree that deception is more insidious and more problematically toxic than a lie you outright caught?
I don't like being lied to my face and if you lie to me I'm done with you. If I felt I was defending a liar, I'd check myself in for psychiatric evaluation because I have lost my mind
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
Yes, we are too stupid to realize that we liked the insurance we had which my not have been perfect but cost less and gave us better coverage than what we have now.
It's this elitist attitude that liberals have that drives people crazy. And it DOES NOT excuse the outright deliberate lie about Obamacare. That kind of attitude is disgusting.
In that she is trying to benefit herself while harming others by flat out lying? No I don't. I think she stretches the truth and pushes that envelope to the edge, but no in the perjury definition I do not
It's amazing what low standards some of you have Â
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
when did you become the beacon for truth justice and the American Way? You are a talk junkie parrot that spews crap 24 x 7. What I really like is how twisted your panties get bunched by the idea that people see things differently than you do. Your first take on anyone feeling differently than you is indignity, like how could we not see things as clearly as you?
In that she is trying to benefit herself while harming others by flat out lying? No I don't. I think she stretches the truth and pushes that envelope to the edge, but no in the perjury definition I do not
Flat out lies?
Never subopenaed? She was
Deleted only private emails? Recovered emails from Blumenthal's account prove she did delete business emails.
Said she never solicited emails from Blumenthal? Recovered Blumenthal emails has her emailing him "keep em coming"
Said she never passed along classified information on private server? 40 documents were sampled and 4 instances of classified info that was classified at the time were sent by her over the server.
And, the Whitewater prosecutor wrote an indictment up about her lying to th grand jury but never submitted it because he didn't want to go after the president's wife.
And, of course, she said she got off the Tarmac in Bosnia under gun fire, but the tape undeniably shows her laughing and under no gun fire. Brian Williams was fired for the same stuff.
I think politicians of both parties take things to the edge, I think she is pathological. In any event, to say she has never flat out lied and only bright it up to th edge is not accurate. She has lied.
can focus in on talking points like Benghazi and personal emails, and yet have no problem with the fact that Repub congress and house members have blocked and repealed every bit of legislation meant to curb Wall Street and corporate overstepping and corruption. Not to mention the joke that is Republican denial of anything climate or evolution related. Scott Walker straight up banned the talking about climate change by his employees, yet Republicans love him. Ted Cruz , Marco Rubio, and James "Snowball" Inhofe, three known anti-science and anti-climate politicians, are somehow put in charge of committees that oversee NASA, NOAA, and the EPA. Republicans are pushing policies that basically guarantee that our coastlines will be sitting underwater within 50 years, and yet somehow you don't have a problem with this. Either that, or you're too lazy and ignorant to look up some climate facts for yourself, which may be even worse.
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
you write subpoenaed and some story about not want to indict the wife of a president. If I was alone in my view and was pissing in the wind, maybe I'm dumb. But after the election in 2016 win or lose 65,000,000 or so will have voted for her. That doesn't take into account the people that don't bother to vote. So a bunch of guys and a talk radio junkie getting bent out of shape means nothing to me. Then again us God hating, America sucks crowd ( according to some)can vote under the Constitution and I take comfort in that where I am viewed as crazy for supporting someone like Hilary on a sports web site 65,000,000 have my back win or lose in the polls
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
Lighten up, it was a joke. But it does amaze the lengths some will go to to defend Obama (it's ok that he lied because he knows better!' and Hillary.
you write subpoenaed and some story about not want to indict the wife of a president. If I was alone in my view and was pissing in the wind, maybe I'm dumb. But after the election in 2016 win or lose 65,000,000 or so will have voted for her. That doesn't take into account the people that don't bother to vote. So a bunch of guys and a talk radio junkie getting bent out of shape means nothing to me. Then again us God hating, America sucks crowd ( according to some)can vote under the Constitution and I take comfort in that where I am viewed as crazy for supporting someone like Hilary on a sports web site 65,000,000 have my back win or lose in the polls
And win or lose a similar number will vote for whatever name ends up on the R line. And the country loses either way, IMHO
Time to vote at least 50 percent( low estimate?) are invested in their candidate. I'm sure that people reflexively vote R or D. I may not be in the majority here, butI certainly am not a nut barking at the moon
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
Lighten up, it was a joke. But it does amaze the lengths some will go to to defend Obama (it's ok that he lied because he knows better!' and Hillary.
Read my 10:40 post I agreed the President lied.
As to HRC, my only point on the other thread was to counter she is "Mrs. Clinton" and as such should just be dismissed. She has a resume of her own. Was not advocating for her. In fact I made it clear have no idea who I'm going to vote for. To early to just cross candidates off list. Well except for Trump
we do need a 14th hearing about Bengazi even though the administration has already been cleared of any wrong doing last November by republican lead House Intelligence Committee
The house committee is never going to get all the docs they subpoenaed. We went through the same charade multiple times in the last admin. Congress issues subpoenaes for docs or testimony, white house says no or drags feet, congress issues contempt of congress citations, white house ignores them or cites executive privilege. The subpoenas issued to Holder and Meirs back around 2005 make it clear congress has only a theoretical right to enforce their subpoenaes but no practical manner of enforcing compliance.
Yes this is from the right wing Breitbart, but it was caught by the left wing Daily Kos
Link - ( New Window )
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
I caught that.
Oh please. And I'm a Sanders supporter.
Yes this is from the right wing Breitbart, but it was caught by the left wing Daily Kos Link - ( New Window )
That's a very big difference.
Nothing sticks. Nothing will.
She can be caught standing over a bloody corpse, covered in blood, with the knife in her hand, laughing hysterically. It won't matter.
of course, it doesn't help when they sprinkle in Vince Foster or Ron Brown (? the guy who died in a plane crash with a 'bullet hole' in his head) conspiracy crap. It only covers up the real shit the woman does.
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
Quote:
this coming from bureaucrats adds to the narrative she is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth
LOL a "narrative" that a politician is dishonest and can't be trusted to tell the truth? In Webster's you could look up politician and it probably says "person who tells lies for a living". So far none of the candidates has told the kind of lie that could result in criminal charges and that's almost the only kind that will have any effect on the election.
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
The linked article suggests (and I, like you do not know the procedure) that there is a procedure for classifying material and it sounds like State under her years relied on people outside the gov't. The intelligence agencies sound like they aren't happy about that.
I'm less comfortable than you about splitting hairs on "not classified at the time" for a few reasons: first, if she was ultimately the person in charge of categorizing the documents as classified, then should could classify them or not on the spot at the time when she would have to give them up or not. It's a different version of "I sent over all the documents that were not personal".."who decides if it's personal?" "Well, me".
2) I would think that most documents that should be classified would be readily discernible by anyone with enough competence to be SoS. At the least, you would know that they were sensitive and likely not appropriate for a personal email account (using the same logic as to why people shouldn't have personal access to classified material in the first place). So, the fact that you have a significant number that are now being retroactively classified sounds hinky. I suppose if anything can be considered "Clintonian" it's using legalese to get around something that logic would dictate is wrong. This strikes me as that.
3) She has stated that she used only one account for all correspondence. In order for her never to have classified info on that account, that would mean that she never once had sensitive or classified electronic correspondence coming to her. Is that possible for a SoS over however many years she was SoS? We've got people in our office...just regular flunkies...that receive hundreds of confidential, secure emails a day.
Quote:
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
Quote:
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
What Bill L said. It's not that Petraus shared the information with his mistress/biographer (who had some security clearance), it's that classified information was not handled properly, same as Clinton. Who, it could be argued, handled it less securely because she had it on a private server so it could not be monitored by government security.
What it will do is increase Hillary's negatives with the relatively small number of truly independent voters. Of course if Trump trashes the Republicans it won't matter.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
Quote:
In comment 12383255 buford said:
Quote:
was prosecuted for it. And had his affair exposed. So.....
Hillary knowingly and intentionally gave classified information to her mistress and biographer? Do you have a source for that?
The standard is not really having a mistress. It's simply possession outside the workplace. WHo would write a law that says it's only illegal if you give it to your biographer or mistress? That would be one only designed to catch Petraeus. Why would they do that? How would they know before the law was written that Petraeus was going to do that? I think that you are asking too much here.
In the face of a unified Republican party standing behind a mainstream candidate with independent appeal and sufficient conservative bonafides to keep the base happy, things like this might hand the Republicans the election. Of course, unicorns and Bigfoot might stroll in from the realm of cryptozoology in the meantime to say hello too.
Now that seems like a very stupid system to me, and I understand that the Obama admin changed them, but the rules were very, very clear that it was allowed and that the issue people have been discussing was compliance with the records retention rules for non-State email addresses.
But to address your specific point, i.e. my response to buford's lazy use of the word "it", I can absolutely see a big legal distinction between (1) knowingly passing classified information to an unauthorized person, and (2) possessing unclassified material on an allowed server which ultimately, years down the road, is reclassified. If #2 is inherently criminal, then you really cant use a private email address even though the rules then in effect specifically allows it.
You know what 'IT' is, you just choose to spin it to come to Hillary's aide. Which is why people like her don't get called to account. If she needs this much protecting from scrutiny, is she really capable and reliable enough to be president?
It also appears she and/or her staff culled through her e-mails and deleted/erased thousands of them and then destroyed the server. That simply doesn't look good.
But one of the elephants in the room is there has been speculation that the Chinese and/or Russians hacked her server. If so, and if she did have politically-fatal or top secret e-mails stolen by their intelligence services, she is actually now exposed to potential blackmail.
There, you would have the confluence of any number of crimes.
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
True. But here you will have a much more docile media as opposed to one that's out for blood.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
The jump to assuming the HRC did something criminal ignores a lot. First, IG's dont deal in criminal statutes. They find facts and then ask prosecutors to decide if any criminal statutes were violated. Second, the Times article does not identify Clinton as a target of the investigation. Indeed, one my imagine that the problem was with people sending materials to Clinton, or the recent release of materials which maybe should have been classified. To that end, note the article says:
Look, again it seems crazy to me that government employees are doing government business over private email. Especially anyone in sensitive fields (defense, intel, diplomacy, treasury...). But apparently the regs applicable to State allowed just that, and a previous SoS had also used private email for public purpose. So if that is allowed, what you're left with is a story that she got non-classified material that years later was re-classified as secret.
I dont know how you can criminalize that in a world where private email usage was allowed. That's just first year law school stuff -- one has to have some way of knowing that their conduct was criminally culpable for it to be a crime. You cant have a crime where someone does something legal but then 5 years later some government official decides to change a status and render your already committed conduct illegal. It's like if you're driving 55 on a 55 road, and a year later the state changes it to a 35 road and sends you a speeding ticket for driving 55.
at least, from the perspective of 'what was our part or not' angle, obviously, not purely causal, but, regarding the lack of a plan to fill that void.
Because in that case it makes Hillary look culpable, right?
Your scenario doesnt fit the purported facts. The NYT article doesnt suggest she was mishandling then-classified information. Rather, it appears to suggest that she had unclassified information, and then years later that information was changed in status to classified. Right? How does your hypothetical fit that?
Quote:
I want an investigation, especially with this Justice Department. If she gets cleared in a few months, she can legitimately say, "This was all about nothing."
However, a claim of executive privilege would further the narrative of dishonesty and prevarication.
Further, how much of a known quantity is Loretta Lynch? With Holder you would have gotten: "Investigation? Sure. What kind of investigation do you want?"
As for Lynch we will see what happens with the Planned Parenthood case. If she investigates them or the videographer. That will give you the answer.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
I think some clarification is in order (by the NYT, not you).
But she sucks.
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - ( New Window )
Jibberish means we don't know that there's an issue. But it also means we don't know there isn't.
Quote:
what is classified and what isn't. So essentially she sets the rules for herself.
That's just a non-sequitur. And straight up ignores the facts. If she got to pick all the rules and did so here, there couldnt be any criminality, as a matter of logic.
The article specifically says who is deciding that the stuff is now classified, and it is low level people (indeed, that is the IG's complaint in part). As far as I can tell, roughly the facts are she got documents that were not classified and handled them as such. At some point later, I believe this year in connection with her email review (but possibly a bit earlier), these documents were re-reviewed and some were deemed to have classified information. She either turned that stuff over to State or destroyed it (depending on who you want to believe), but did not give it to someone she is fucking (or another 3rd party).
If you think the facts are different, let me know. It's a developing and poorly reported story, so I might be misunderstanding. But if those are the facts, then my hypothetical makes more sense. She drove 55 on those materials when 55 was the applicable speed limit. Later on the speed limit was changed to 35. You can go back and tell people that they therefore should have driven 35 all along. That's Soviet Russia shit right there.
You're right. There can't be criminality which, as is manifest here, is not the same as dishonesty. What I am saying is that at the time she got the documents they were not classified because she was nominally in charge of the classification. So, they can only be termed classified now.
IMO, it defies logic to have so many documents classified now that weren't obviously classifiable then. In fact, with time the trend should be toward declassification as opposed to classification. So, maybe it's a technicality but it's still a duck. Further, you still have to suspend reality to believe that the SoS was not allowed to handle classified documents during her tenure, which is pretty much what had to have happened in order for her not to have handled classified documents on her email account.
So that's that. Two sets of regulations or laws.
But, in addition, you can bet that IF anything was redacted outside of normal procedure, then THAT in and of itself will turn out to have been breaking some other whole regulation or law, otherwise it would have not been redacted in the first place. They are not going to risk breaking set of laws 'A' just over something that looks bad, it will be about set 'B.'
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Or it could be one of the thousand cuts (no criminality but highly questionable ethics) that eventually prove fatal.
The elephant in the room being that they know the Clintons wont is to push the envelope and that something over and above those two will rear its head, assuming they can find any missing emails.
yes but not every USC employee is married to an ex President
The Secret Service set up the server for Bill Clinton and any reasonable person would assume that it would be extremely secure. Do you think She would have turned down SOS job if USC IT department said no to this request?
They said Ok so she did it .. If there is someone at fault it is the IT and Security Departments of Federal Government not Clinton
In addition I would assume most SOS sensitive business is NOT handled by email which is the most vulnerable modern communication
Yes the optics reek so the Republicans will correctly keep on pushing this
because that is all they have BENAGAZI!!!!!!!!!!!
You'd said (and have essentially said before):
Im not an expert, but this appears wrong. If the issue were that cut and dry, there couldnt even be a debate. And if you (or more relevantly, HRC who may not be subject to the same rules as all gov't employees) cant use private email for any goverment work -- period -- then why does 36 CFR 1236.22(b) provide a requirement that agencies preserve Federal Records sent or received "using a system not operated by the agency":
There wouldnt be a regulation for private email backup if private email wasnt allowed. Indeed, the linked WSJ article (hardly HRC fanboys), if correct, expressly contradicts what you were told:
The Federal Records Act requires government agencies to preserve records documenting the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions” of an agency’s business. But it was only last year that Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law with a series of modern-day changes to improve recordkeeping and preservation.
The 2014 overhaul, which postdates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, placed explicit limits on agency officials using private email accounts for official business. The new law said agency officials can’t create or send a government record on a private account unless they also copy or forward the email to their official government email address.
The National Archives and Records Administration in September 2013 issued guidance to federal agencies that said federal employees generally shouldn’t use personal email accounts to conduct official business, except in limited situations, such as during emergencies when an official may not be able to access an official account.
That 2013 guidance, which also postdated Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, replaced a 2008 memo on federal recordkeeping that didn’t specifically address email records.
Link - ( New Window )
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
the DOJ probe is whether info that was retroactively classified
was accidentally released in the Freedom of information request of Clinton's email
in other words the investigation is about the release of some information that was later decided to be classified when the press requested what was in the Clinton Emails
but of course it was ALL HER FAULT !!! SHE IS DISHONEST !!!!
Seriously she requested to use private secure mail server set up by Secret Service for her Ex President husband it was to ok by relevant US Government Departments
so She used it ..
Clinton did exactly what every previous secretary of state had done.
please please tell me what is the scandal here?
It is amazing how the Right wing manufacturers these "scandals " to paint Hilary Clinton as untrust worthy and an entitled "liar"
You would think that after all these scandals Hillary would be dead in the water as a candidate and yet She is leading the polls.. Why is that ?
because these are FAUX SCANDALS
Colin Powell relied on personal emails while secretary of state - ( New Window )
The NY Times is right wing?
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
I dont doubt you were told in training that you cant use private email. But as clearly demonstrated in the sources I excerpted, that's simply not the law as it applied while HRC was SoS. Right?
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
She should've had an independent 3rd party determine what was valid. And (as the NYT reported) she did delete records pertinent to her position as SoS.
Quote:
The inspector general of the State Department is different than a Republican-led committee. Also if this were going to proceed, it would have to be Obama's Justice Department. So your last point makes little sense.
Doesn't make sense to you, but HRC will play it that way. And the chances of this investigation reaching a significan finding are a function of its bias.
So if the IG of a John Kerry DOS refers a matter to Loretta Lynch's DOJ any significant finding would be a function of the bias of the investigators?
So is it Hillary or Saint Hillary?
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
She did it with Ken Starr
She did it with Whitwater
GOP should stop looking for the "gotcha moment" and focus on putting some board based policies together that are better than what the dems are doing.
SO, why don't you take this "anything goes" approach with every politician?
Quote:
I think that most people can distinguish the typical "I'll lower your taxes and give you more free shit at the same time" types of lies from the personal integrity lies.
Every lie is a personal integrity lie.
Not sure I disagree, but we have talked about nuances in other threads. I'm not sure "you don't look fat in that dress" is the same thing as "give me all your money and as prince of Nigeria I will give it to you back ten-fold". I suppose reasonable people can disagree.
However, more often than not, I am like you and have fewer gray areas. As I have said many times on this site, I think Javert gets a raw deal. He is completely in the right.
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Quote:
In comment 12383803 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
All I can you is this: I had "Secret" clearance. We were not allowed to use personal e-mail for work business even with unclassified material. The reason? The security of the networks.
The problem for HRC is that much of her non-classified e-mail probably was so sensitive that it could or should have been classified. It's simply the nature of the position of Secretary of State. Almost every conversation she had about a foreign country was probably sensitive. (i.e., if she had an online conversation about Putin and the Ukraine or China's island creation in the South China Sea, etc.). It would be impossible for her to do her job without being able to have these types of online conversations.
The USG networks - as we have seen - are vulnerable too. But the private-sector ones are extremely vulnerable.
********
Again, as I said above. If you like HRC, this is a witch hunt. If you don't like her, the e-mail/server issue isn't really THE issue (though it's the one that I'm making a big deal out of). The issue for those who don't like her is they assume she erased the e-mails/server to cover up something. Either side isn't going to convince the other. But that's the dynamic at play here.
Quote:
In comment 12383894 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12383803 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
and beyond all that, that doesn't change the fact that they erased thousands of e-mails and destroyed the server.
Should she have not deleted emails which do not qualify for Federal Records Act preservation? What about emails from Bill re: dinner? Send them to the National Archives?
Who made the determination of what qualified and what did not?
HRC.
"Ah!" you'll say, I've got you there Deej. It's dirty as shit for Hillary to be deciding which of her emails qualify for preservation! Dont you see the conflict? Dont you see the avenue for abuse? She's Nixon!
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
Er, I hope you know that every email you send or receive is stored on a server, not your PC. Even if you delete them, they still exist. That is why Clinton wanted her own server. She decided to combine her personal and work emails, so she has to turn all of them over.
And I am not allowed to use personal email for work purposes. And I don't have classified emails.
Quote:
In comment 12383894 Deej said:
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
The OIG Memos - ( New Window )
Quote:
This isn't a server question although it evolved into one.
My understanding is that she may have mishandled classified information. The inspectors said in their request that the legality of handling is up to the justice department to decide.
Just like Pertaeus, it's a question of how she handled some classified material.
Well, I've now found the memos and you're dead wrong. Today's whole story is dead wrong. The fault of the Times, not you. These memos have nothing at all to do with actions by Secretary Clinton. Mind blown?
The memos say nothing about HRC's handling of classified materials. They address the IGs' "concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails". And then they go on to say that the docs werent marked classified but had some classified materials, and in particular express concern that some classified materials have been released thru the FOIA process. The FOIA process. That has nothing to do with Clinton. Clinton doesnt respond to FOIAs. State circa 2015 (post-Clinton) responds to FOIAs. If the IGs' concern was Clinton's mishandling of these materials (either because of confidentiality or destruction), the memo would have mentioned the Federal Records Act or similar law. These memos arent written lightly. The singular focus on FOIA reference is the ballgame.
What a fucking waste of time. Yet another ridiculous Clinton scandal.
The OIG Memos - ( New Window )
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Quote:
In comment 12383934 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12383894 Deej said:
Quote:
Except that's what the manual says to do (I dont have a link handy, but users were instructed on what needs to be preserved because they were the ones responsible for doing it). The user is the first line in deciding what to preserve. That's the way it really has to be. That's how it works in my office too -- I decide which emails to send to files and which will be deleted.
But would that still hold true 2-3 years after you have left your job? My understanding is that most, if not all, of the deletions were made after 2012.
Im not sure I understand the question. But my point actually comes from a different angle. Im a commercial litigator. Email preservation, review, and production is at the heart of what I do for a living. It's the best evidence ever. My point is this -- if you need to shred a one-off document you have, you can shred it and it's gone.
Need to secret an email you were on? Good. Fucking. Luck. Oh, I'll wipe my server, problem solved. But really wipe, since data recovery techniques are fairly effective. Oh, and devices -- gotta wipe your laptop, phone, tablet etc. And again, probably better to go Lindsey Graham on them because of data recovery. Problem solved? Nooooo. Everyone always forgets about backups. Gotta wipe the backups too (Im trying to purge some emails from my backup right now, and Im in week 5 of the ordeal). Ok, finally, my emails are deleted! Now I just have to find the person who sent me the email and destroy their server, phone, laptop, tablet, and backup tapes. I just hope they let me, and that there server/backups arent US government property and already sent to the archives. Email is like the herpes of evidence -- that shit is basically forever.
Buford: So because you cant use private email at your job...? Because HRC was decidedly allowed to do it at her job.
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
You dont have to believe me. I linked the memos.
But damage done, right? She did "it"!
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
Quote:
move along.....
But damage done, right? She did "it"!
"I feel your pain." - Chris Christie
Quote:
So if I understand you correctly, the Clinton emails contained classified materials that state may have inappropriately released for FOIA and they are investigating the FOIA for illegally releasing the classified materials in the Clinton emails?
Yes. That is precisely what these memos speak to. The questions from last month over whether she should have had a private email server and whether she properly preserved emails -- still as valid or invalid as before. But last night's NY Times story (which the Times nerfed overnight to an incomprehensible mess) is in fact a question of State's 2015 FOIA review process and has nothing to do with Clinton's conduct.
You dont have to believe me. I linked the memos.
I don't think I have never not believed you. Not sure why you would say that. Don't agree with, don't understand, can't fathom your pov..yeah...but if you say it, I don't disbelieve it.
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
She retained a lot of these e-mails on her server long after she left government. Now, you can say she just would have deleted them while she was in office. On the other hand, they might have been archived somewhere else in the DOS's system.
. . . but if you think her email communications were so nefarious to the point where she used her own server to hide them, then what difference would it even make to you if she actually used her government issued email account exclusively? By that line of thinking she would have still had the consciousness to circumvent any record keeping or tracking by doing all of her "criminal activity" outside of government system while doing all of her normal secretary of state business on the assigned email.
Long story short, if she was in fact covering up something illegal then she clearly was going to make sure no one was going to find out about it regardless of what email she was using. But using a personal email for official business, although suspicious, is not illegal on its own. At the very least, using all this energy to try to discover whether or not she deleted incriminating emails is a waste of time.
We don't know what we don't know which is why having on ly one person in possession impedes everything. One thing we do know, which she may have wanted to keep hidden, is that her boss specifically instructed her to keep Blumenthal far away from gov't affairs and she failed to do so. She may have wanted top keep that hidden, not from public or Congress, but from her boss.
I'd say with respect to the Sid Blumenthal e-mails the possibility was roughly 100%.
I'm just having a hard time following the logic that there is an acknowledgement that there was classified material in the emails and that the end point (the FOIA release) is worthy of investigation but the initial possession is hunky dory fine.
Well I dont know what any agency/investigator has concluded that HRC's email conduct was totally legal. Just that these memos have nothing to do with an investigation like that.
I dont really understand the problem with the initial possession angle. As I posted above, using a personal email account was at the time completely legal. It was stupid and the law has changed, but legal at the time. So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
Maybe she mishandled emails. I dont know. But I havent seen any evidence of it. Just a bunch of people expressing best practices that were not the applicable law at the time. Oh, the horror.
But every USG employee knows you can't use private e-mail and servers for USG business. It's ingrained into them EVERY year during cyber security training.
And even if HRC is completely innocent, it does not change the fact that she and her staff erased thousands of e-mails and the server. Optically, it reeks.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
Bingo Eric. I can't really comment in depth on this thread but it all stinks to high heaven and there are legitimate grounds here for an investigation. It's shit like this that makes it more difficult for the rest of us.
What are the grounds? People flapping their arms in ignorance does not create grounds for a criminal investigation.
The lines are, at a minimum: SoS receives and issues tons of classified correspondence. SoS uses private email for 100% of electronic correspondence. Former SoS self-selects what material to turn over to State (doing it under duress as well). Once material was actually collected and examined by State, a large amount was classified as being classified.
It's really some great conspiracy to want someone to look to see if there were other materials that were classified at the time?
But the deletions occurred predominantly during or after 2014. At a minimum I'd like a little clarity as to what the rules were (law was) at the time of the deletions.
Does it prove HRC is unfit for office? Does it convince her supporters (I am not one) to switch to another candidate?
When in situations like this its not what you have but what you do with it. GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
Moreover, I'd bet betting that government employees arent emailing around classified documents (pretty sure I've read that). Especially to outside email addresses. Classified and unclassified docs are just treated very separately. If that's right there would be no reason at all to believe that she was, just maybe, being emailed classified documents.
Quote:
So what do you want OIG to do? Investigate legal conduct? Make recommendations on how to change a law that was already changed in 2014?
But the deletions occurred predominantly during or after 2014. At a minimum I'd like a little clarity as to what the rules were (law was) at the time of the deletions.
This is just wack-a-mole from people who want to see her knocked out. X must be illegal, so investigate it! No, then Y, investigate that! Humf, no again. Well, Z it is!
Look, if she did something wrong Im sure it will be investigated. That's OIG's job. But people calling from the outside for investigations when they have no real idea what the facts are or what the applicable laws/regs were? Unhelpful. Fishing expeditions? Unhelpful.
The lines are, at a minimum: SoS receives and issues tons of classified correspondence. SoS uses private email for 100% of electronic correspondence. Former SoS self-selects what material to turn over to State (doing it under duress as well). Once material was actually collected and examined by State, a large amount was classified as being classified.
It's really some great conspiracy to want someone to look to see if there were other materials that were classified at the time?
Bill. You are correct. There needs to an investigation to provide an assessment of whether any classified information was compromised. It also about maintaining the integrity of the system and his is why the comparison to Petraeus is appropriate. You cannot excuse these unauthorized actions and expect the rest of the workforce to play by a different set of rules. That in the end is why Petraeus had to go.
What?
Quote:
.
What?
I was responding to WideRight's post about smearing a woman. I dont see the relevance of gender here.
Does it prove HRC is unfit for office? Does it convince her supporters (I am not one) to switch to another candidate?
When in situations like this its not what you have but what you do with it. GOP consistently tries to smear their opponents without promoting a clear alternative. Smearing a woman, particularly HRC, backfires. Its about winning, and I would not consider this a winnng strategy
This.
The problem with modern politics is that we live in an era where attacking is considered better than thinking and solving. Sound bite attacks small enough to fit the short news attention span and fit onto screens using bullet points next to a TV talking head is easier than trying to come up with policies and defend them.
I think that outside of the ideological zealots who appear to think, as some of the posts above show, that the world views news through thier ideological prism, most people will not remember or care about the alleged "scandals" surrounding Clinton, Walker, Perry or any other candidate when they vote. In fact, if one side rides the allegations too hard, it backfires.
The point of modern elections is to win the people in the middle who don't care about the "Inside Baseball" that consumes the radicalized wings of both parties. Things like email deletion and ordering underlings to fire people don't register with most people because these are things that they would not want to deal with either- they will vote for the person they like the most. If you come across as angry and aggressive, like most people, you will get ignored and lose.
Just focus on how you will help me, the common person, and you will win. Why can't modern political strategists in both parties figure this out?
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
Quote:
.
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
I dont agree that she has beaten the game. Every one of her farts gets investigated like she shot Kennedy. If there was shit to take her down, she'd be down.
Quote:
In comment 12384120 Deej said:
Quote:
.
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
I dont agree that she has beaten the game. Every one of her farts gets investigated like she shot Kennedy. If there was shit to take her down, she'd be down.
Just for my own personal interest and nothing to do with emails or her political aspirations, you truly believe her to be a fundamentally honest person?
Quote:
.
Yes. I may be seeing too much into it. But if the investigation gains traction, thats how its going to be portrayed. Thats how she beaten the game before.
Oh? What was the other situation that she got out of by being a woman?
Quote:
In comment 12384120 Deej said:
Quote:
.
Oh? What was the other situation that she got out of by being a woman?
The Vietnam draft
Oh, the irony.....
I learn a lot from these discussions.
I learn a lot from these discussions.
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Just for my own personal interest and nothing to do with emails or her political aspirations, you truly believe her to be a fundamentally honest person?
Comparatively, yes. In practice I think everyone lies. We lie to ourselves and eachother hundreds of times a day. A significant number of us live in mental constructs that barely hold onto reality. Shit, the entire fitness club business model is premised on self-delusion. I sit in depositions and watch people lie for no earthly reason -- people who have nothing at all at stake in the case will just perjure themselves for no reason. And they'll tell you the sky is red, even after you show them a picture of the sky; maybe not a lie per se but the same symptom.
I'll say this -- when she speaks to a matter of policy, I find that she tends to be grounded in reality. Much less facts-to-fit-the-ideology than most politicians.
What I thought it was all along and even stated that.
They changed that at the request of the Clinton camp because they didn't like the wording.
Depositions are under oath and videotaped. It's the same thing. And dont kid yourself about people not lying in court. Now, civil matters tend to settle or otherwise get disposed of during pre-trial stages. There is lying in civil trials all the time. Family court (divorce) is a cesspool of lies Im told by practitioners. Things are a little different in the criminal realm I think because DAs and AUSAs will prosecute people for lying in their trials (well, the ones who lie for the defense anyway).
I'll say this -- when she speaks to a matter of policy, I find that she tends to be grounded in reality. Much less facts-to-fit-the-ideology than most politicians.
That's funny to me because I think about this a lot and, especially after seeing clips of the president on Stewart and many of the other things I hear he (and Josh Earnest et al) say. I think both he and Hillary lie constantly..more so than any other (unindicted) politician that I can ever recall. (I'll admit some of that may be tinted by my differing ideology). But I see them as fundamentally different. Like Obama talking about the IRS the other night or Iran or keep you doctor or...pretty much everything, I see the lies to be to ensure his ideology (partly legacy but mostly sincere ideology) reaches fruition. An end justifies the glib means. If locking your own way of life in can be separated from personal gain, I see him seeing that it's okay to say whatever so long as he gets his way. With Hillary I see dishonesty but it's all in pursuit of ambition and not ideology.
Not sure I explained that distinction well, but that's my pov.
Almost nobody. And you dont get warnings like that in civil cases. And if you did it would be from someone's lawyer, and not a "prosecutor". Prosecutors are scarier than regular ole lawyers.
Civil perjury is not prosecuted. It's a non-secret among lawyers not named Stephen Gillers (my idiot ethics professor who gets his sneezes written up in the NY Times). There was actually some interesting discussion about this during the Clinton era. I think people found like a dozen or so perjury prosecutions stemming from federal civil cases. Ever.
So you could say that politician's spin is a lie, or his failure to acknowledge X is a lie. And by some definition sure. But in reality (IMO at least), that's just ignoring how the human mind functions. In the mind of the speaker, they're being honest. Most of the time at least.
Seriously? They were both defining marriage as between a man and a woman until it was politically expedient to. And let's not get started on 'if you like your plan, you can keep your plan....'
On the honesty, I think most of us believe rightly or wrongly, that we are ourselves honest. Someone we admire or someone who shares our ideology or party cannot be dishonest and have us support them because then we might have to question our honesty. So we do filter.
Having said that, I still think Hillary is different in this respect and I do think that this will be a moral conundrum for Democrats next November. And, as I said before, I think it's an interesting societal/cultural question on prioritizing different values and virtues for us all. Beyond the politics, I do think this is a real pivot point for us culturally.
I admit to agreeing with just about everything you said ... you just said it in a much more intelligent manner than I could ever hope to.
you base accomplishments on buford but listening to talk radio 24x7 and regurgitating it here is probably your biggest accomplishment in life
It's pretty tiresome.
It's working, why stop?
Ignorance is not an excuse, of course.
this thread should be deleted
Like, Wow.
But the media wants Hillary as president.
I couldn't disagree more.
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
Exactly.
In all of the domestic and foreign policy issues of the last seven years, you think the only time the Administration has deceived Americans is the doctors comment?
I rip Republican politicians all of the time as do my Democratic and Republican friends. But I don't know many Democrats who will rip their politicians. I find this strange.
But as a candidate, she has absolutely 0 appeal to me. And people will go through the grind of defending her as if she is the 2nd coming (not mentioning anyone here, just a generalization). She may win, but if she is the best candidate Democrats can offer..... you will see Republican presidents sooner than we think.
Well I didn't just write a clueless post about how truthful McConnel or Boehner are.
It's working, why stop?
Hillary is her own worse enemy. Stop blaming the media. She could have avoided all of this by not having her own server and then deleting the emails when it looked like they could have been subpoenaed. She sets herself up every time.
Quote:
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
Exactly.
The IG also specifically said that the classified materials in the emails was *not* retroactively classified but was classified at its inception.
Then sometime next summer a story starts somewhere that no one has been more abused than this woman. How it's because she is a woman. Suffering for the hate of people for Bill. How it hurts her grand children and daughter deeply.
Like wildfire women who worked for the Republican candidate were fired or paid less. Within a news cycle the story is the other guy treats women like second class citizens. Makes their life harder. Wants to make laws to make it harder on women.
Then he has to answer that storm...which HRC never says anything. It's a third rail...guaranteed not to have a perfect answer to the charge ...When did you stop hating women?
Women are 54% of the vote and a higher percent of who votes.
Slime that is right as rain but does not knock out a first time symbol is a two edged sword.
Then sometime next summer a story starts somewhere that no one has been more abused than this woman. How it's because she is a woman. Suffering for the hate of people for Bill. How it hurts her grand children and daughter deeply.
Like wildfire women who worked for the Republican candidate were fired or paid less. Within a news cycle the story is the other guy treats women like second class citizens. Makes their life harder. Wants to make laws to make it harder on women.
Then he has to answer that storm...which HRC never says anything. It's a third rail...guaranteed not to have a perfect answer to the charge ...When did you stop hating women?
Women are 54% of the vote and a higher percent of who votes.
Slime that is right as rain but does not knock out a first time symbol is a two edged sword.
This
Quote:
In comment 12384501 schabadoo said:
Quote:
These type of 100% false stories won't stick to her?
Exactly.
fwiw, the IG people came out this afternoon and said they are asking for a security investigation and not a criminal investigation. They said the referred it to DOJ for them to decide...only DoJ can do a criminal investigation. So NYT is indeed wrong on that.
The IG also specifically said that the classified materials in the emails was *not* retroactively classified but was classified at its inception.
The IG letter doesnt say anything about referring for an investigation or DOJ deciding etc. It was merely a notification to security officials that CI may exist in repositories not controlled by the government. It also makes clear that the CIs contain no CI markings or dissemination control markings.
If he hadnt run. Like if he was a first time candidate. 2004 was a disaster for him in regards to a presidency.
Quote:
sailed
If he hadnt run. Like if he was a first time candidate. 2004 was a disaster for him in regards to a presidency.
He campaigned on being the most transparent President...even his supporters will admit this has been one of the least transparent Administrations in memory. The obstrufication on Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, AP phone and James Rosen scandals, etc.
He campaigned that deficit reduction was important to him.
The stimulus package was largely wasted but the Administration still credits it for the current economic "recovery." Where did the "shovel ready" projects go? Cash for clunkers? The many Solyndra-type fiascos.
Disingenuous at best about the true state of unemployment (not counting the people who stopped looking for work, real workforce participation number, underemployed part-time workers).
His biggest legacy item...Obamacare... you can keep your doctor and medical plan...premiums and deductibles will decrease. They have postponed the most distasteful elements of the program (employer mandate) until after the election.
He campaigned on financial reform but his financial reform bill was hollow.
He has been completely disingenuous at best regarding his commitment to border security.
He tells Americans that global warming is the #1 national security threat.
For who knows what reason, he won't label our Islamic extremists enemies for what they are. Fort Hood being the most egregious example domestically, but the Administration for some reason continues to downplay the foreign threat.
Administration officials have now admitted they knew what the Benghazi attacks were when they happened. That wasn't revealed publicly until after the election.
The reality of the Iran deal does not match pre-deal rhetoric.
His rhetoric on Israel doesn't match the Administration's actions.
Has repeatedly changed his position on gay marriage.
*********
Look, we have different political views. And you are completely entitled to your opinions and views. The American system works because citizens can peacefully disagree.
The point of this post is not to slam the man you support or attempt to change your mind, but merely respond to your question about what deceptions?
Deficit reduction...he put no budget forward that reduced the deficit...you blame that on Congress?
Unemployment computation...how did Congress alter that?
Financial reform...ok, Congress could get involved in that
Knowledge of the cause of Benghazi....how does an intransigent Congress impact that?
I think this is true and it is unfortunate for him and the country. He was such a great campaigner, but for some reason that skill didn't translate to dealing with Congress. I also don't think he has communicated his views very well to the country on things he is right about. Strange. He dealt with the press well during the elections, but not when in office.
Nope. But you looked at Eric's list and said that's all Congress fault. I'm trying to figure out where Congress played a role in those things.
Because he and his supporters have dramatically over-played the recovery. The economy is still in really bad shape. The problem is that wages have stagnated and there has not been enough "good" jobs created. The country is facing a really bad situation where only half the country is paying taxes and that number is going to get worse. You can't pay for all of the government programs when your tax base is shrinking while your expenditures increase.
Both the Republicans and Democrats had hidden the true state of the economy by zero interest rate policies that have fueled the stock market (and exacerbated the wealth gap that the left criticizes).
The flood of immigrants are also putting downward pressure on wages. Bureau of Labor Statistics says the labor participation fate for 18-21 year olds is now only 33 percent. Immigration is also cause government expenditures to increase (federal and local).
But I believe that the head of the irs acknowledged it and apologized in hearings
Thing you have to know about me is I grew up a liberal in a house of liberals. My mom and I still argue every week about all of this stuff.
He's a proven liar.
That company was in trouble before they got the stimulus money and the WH knew it. The Dept of Energy knew it. But the owner was an Obama donor so.....
Then sometime next summer a story starts somewhere that no one has been more abused than this woman. How it's because she is a woman. Suffering for the hate of people for Bill. How it hurts her grand children and daughter deeply.
Like wildfire women who worked for the Republican candidate were fired or paid less. Within a news cycle the story is the other guy treats women like second class citizens. Makes their life harder. Wants to make laws to make it harder on women.
Then he has to answer that storm...which HRC never says anything. It's a third rail...guaranteed not to have a perfect answer to the charge ...When did you stop hating women?
Women are 54% of the vote and a higher percent of who votes.
Slime that is right as rain but does not knock out a first time symbol is a two edged sword.
You have no idea how much this irks me. She's supposed to be good for women, yet she plays the poor damsel in distress card every time. It's sickening.
There has been testimony and correspondence that we knew immediately that it was an organized attack.
I didn't say he instructed anyone; who knows.
I said that he said that targeting did not happen.
Quote:
Obama has failed 50 percent of the country. I'm not his cheerleader, he is tone deaf, egotistical , refuse to work with the other houses. He is a lone wolf. The policies that he has made law you might think will hurt the country and I'm not arguing that. What I am saying he believes his vision for America is the right vision, he was elected twice. You can call him misguided, but to call the man a liar and not cite lies that came out of his mouth in not right
Thing you have to know about me is I grew up a liberal in a house of liberals. My mom and I still argue every week about all of this stuff.
Me too. My trips home are usually full of arguments. My older sister is now a full fledged communist who loves DeBlasio and Warren. But she's an academic, what do you expect?
I was responding to your comments about Solyndra, which are spin.
Link - ( New Window )
People with?
This is ridiculous. He and Clinton blamed the video. Even after they knew that was wrong. He went on the View of all places and said that after it was already known that it wasn't because of the video. And that debate, when the then claimed he called it a terrorist attack when he said at the time it was because of a video. He and Clinton APOLOGIZED for the video.
You seem to have a very selective memory.
I have a negative view of the man so I don't think you want to know my answer here. But regardless, he should have ordered Holder to launch a real investigation.
Don't you find it odd that in most of these scandals the e-mails keep permanently disappearing? How does an e-mail disappear? At my agency, everything was backed up regularly (e-mails, files) I still can't fathom how any department can seriously claim the e-mails are gone.
It's a lie if anyone does it. Republican or Democrat. Not saying Obama is alone in this. But I was asked about how he has lied (I'd prefer to use the word disingenuous).
But I'm also incredulous that you would separate what susan rice or josh Ernest or Jay carney say from Obama.
Yes, I believe he has deliberately deceived the American public. You asked me to provide some examples and I did. You don't think those are legitimate examples. I do. We'll have to leave it at that. We're not going to change each other's minds on this.
Please keep track of the posts. I didn't say that Obama lied directly about Solyndra. Definitely misrepresented what happened or what would happen since he had to know that Solyndra was in deep trouble.
I was mainly responding to your characterization of Solyndra and how everything happened. Which you had 100% wrong.
We have many times.
I think at this point I'll just echo Eric's last post
He and his senior officials have made plenty of false statements on most if not all of the few items I listed. I'm not going to hunt down the quotes but there are plenty both during the two presidential campaigns and after them when in office.
You asked. I answered. You don't agree with my answer.
That's actually not true. Democrats had a super-majority for only 7 weeks of Obama's presidency, up until the point Ted Kennedy died.
There is no doubt that if he had the votes, which he didn't, we'd have a single payer system today. He took what he could get and paved the way for single payer in the future.
Quote:
keep in mind, he had a super-majority in Congress the first two years of his Administration.
That's actually not true. Democrats had a super-majority for only 7 weeks of Obama's presidency, up until the point Ted Kennedy died.
That's news to me. Did they have a majority? (I'm pretty sure the Democrats controlled both houses for the first two years).
If you ask me, Obama has potentially sabotaged himself by not laying a better foundation with Congress throughout his Presidency.
The old health care system was broken. Something had to change. If the Administration had thrown the Republicans a few bones on tort reform and cross-state competition, you would have had some bilateral support. There would be a vested interest in Obamacare moving forward (or fixing it if there were problems). Now, I think it survives if HRC wins. It will become institutionalized. But if she loses, it may disappear. Big risk by Obama.
Same story with Iran deal. The way he is handling this if the Republicans win, while the UN sanctions will be permanently gone, the U.S. sanctions and hard feelings may return very quickly.
You have to build bipartisan support on big ticket stuff to have vested interest in its survival.
The Congress doesn't have the balls to impreach the first Black President and Obama knows that, as does any politically savvy person over the age of 9.
Quote:
he really wants a single payer nationalized health care system. But he won't say it.
There is no doubt that if he had the votes, which he didn't, we'd have a single payer system today. He took what he could get and paved the way for single payer in the future.
Isn't he being disingenuous by not saying that?
It's the same way Republicans who say they are pro life have no real intention of overturning Roe v. Wade.
As I said to Headhunter, I'll make a Republican list too. But let's not act like Obama is some sort of saint.
Quote:
In comment 12384734 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
he really wants a single payer nationalized health care system. But he won't say it.
There is no doubt that if he had the votes, which he didn't, we'd have a single payer system today. He took what he could get and paved the way for single payer in the future.
Isn't he being disingenuous by not saying that?
It's the same way Republicans who say they are pro life have no real intention of overturning Roe v. Wade.
As I said to Headhunter, I'll make a Republican list too. But let's not act like Obama is some sort of saint.
Of course he's being disingenuous. Like he was when he said you can keep your doctor. Or when he said marriage should be something between a man and a woman. There actually are some R's who would overturn Roe-Wade, but not many
Thanks. But with both houses, I have a hard time accepting an argument that Congress was the problem. If anything, the Congress has surrendered more Constitutional authority to the White House and the Supreme Court than ever before. It's become a pretty impotent organization. Not good.
What bugs me most is it seems that Europe has become the role model we should aspire to. This country was ultimately founded by people trying to get away from that screwed up continent. Now it's some sort of model?
I am of the persuasion that we are the model. Do we have our problems? You bet. But moving towards socialism isn't the answer. It sounds great, but it doesn't work. And the long-term fiscal viability of even the lesser social democracy models in Europe is in question (not just Greece).
There was an article in Politico earlier this month that said if the United States could simply get rid of the South, we could finally become more European. It was a nauseating read.
Reed could have just had the vote to stop filibusters then. Problem solved.
What bugs me most is it seems that Europe has become the role model we should aspire to. This country was ultimately founded by people trying to get away from that screwed up continent. Now it's some sort of model?
I am of the persuasion that we are the model. Do we have our problems? You bet. But moving towards socialism isn't the answer. It sounds great, but it doesn't work. And the long-term fiscal viability of even the lesser social democracy models in Europe is in question (not just Greece).
There was an article in Politico earlier this month that said if the United States could simply get rid of the South, we could finally become more European. It was a nauseating read.
I don't think that just getting rid of the South would do it. We'd have to get rid of fly-over country also. Actually just keep NE, the West coast and WI, MI and PA. Socialist college football would mostly suck
The old health care system was broken. Something had to change. If the Administration had thrown the Republicans a few bones on tort reform and cross-state competition, you would have had some bilateral support.
Eric you are talking about a party that had its leaders meet as He and Michelle were dancing at inaugural balls and decided their #1 goal was to block every last policy initiative that Obama proposed. Do you honestly think one Republican was voting for the affordable care act in any form whatsoever? If you think so I have some ocean front property in North Dakota to sell you. What the hell else did they have to do? They adopted the Romney Care Heritage foundation healthcare plan. Come on you are smarter than that.
Well, it probably is. See the horrifying New Yorker article linked below. The capital of USA may very well be Des Moines in 50 years.
If you're more afraid of ISIS than the California drought, you probably watch too much Fox News.
If anything, looking back, lack of action on climate will probably be Obama's biggest failure.
New Yorker: Meet James Harden - ( New Window )
See the horrifying New Yorker article linked below. The capital of USA may very well be Des Moines in 50 years.
Now that would be a huge improvement
I've long thought it was stupid for Republicans to appear to be anti-environmental... after all, reducing pollution is a good thing. And while regulation can hurt business, it can also help to create new industries as long as the regulations are not too onerous.
But global warming is not the #1 national security threat. If you believe that, you're watching too much MSNBC.
Climate is woefully under reported from all mainstream outlets, and as I said, I see the issue as Obama's biggest failure.
Now, to be fair, Climate is not the #1 national security issue. (I actually think cyber security is the biggest threat). However, when the most populous state in the Union is facing a drought of biblical proportions, yeah that's a huge security issue. We are talking about 60% of the state classified as extreme drought or worse. A water deficit of 12 trillion gallons. Billions in negative economic impact. If 38 million people suddenly find their faucets running dry, that's a more frightening proposition than Islamic extremists or Russian despots thousands of miles away. It's not some quirk of the weather causing this, it's a rapidly deteriorating climate. That's my opinion, though.
As for the science, people need to get real. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at critical levels today. The doomsday number of 450 million parts per million will be reached in 20 years at the current emission rate. This is real scary shit.
Obama lied when he said that Americans who were happy with their current health insurance policy would be able to maintain it under Obamacare....
Much like the old saying about slowly increasing the temperature deceives a frog to complacency until boiled where as dropping a frog into a stew of lies gives him the opportunity to jump out of danger. ...I think the American experience since Eisenhower has us boiled and America hollow husk of Americana.
Separately...I don't think the nation is remotely becoming socialist. I think it is economic fascism...and that drift happened under Clinton Bush Obama.
And I think the fact that too many citizens don't know the difference between the two allows fascism to grow while we object to second tier signals of things that look like socialism.
Imho
But that is also easy to just say to the public as the rationale.
Imho....they all assume the electorate is stupid and has to be maneuvered and "over guided". A common trait signal of nations and organizations with elitists at the top.
And to tie to an earlier point ....elitism does not go hand in hand with socialism...it goes hand in hand with economic fascism
It's a lie because they knew it was untrue when it was stated. It's a lie because it was deliberately told to get the bill passed. It's a lie because Obama doesn't care if you keep your doctor or your plan or save $2500 a year. All he cares about is pushing his agenda. Whether you like it or not, if it's good or not or will be successful or not. He's a dishonest person, he has no integrity and he's proven that time and time again.
But that is also easy to just say to the public as the rationale.
Imho....they all assume the electorate is stupid and has to be maneuvered and "over guided". A common trait signal of nations and organizations with elitists at the top.
And to tie to an earlier point ....elitism does not go hand in hand with socialism...it goes hand in hand with economic fascism
Agree Bill. There is a cartel of Politicians, Lobbyists and Big Business who are running the country for their benefit.
Link - ( New Window )
at this, the good ones are
If you tell the lie more than 20 times is it 20 lies or just one?
Not so in politics. There is no direct face to face bounds.
and too be blunt....it is not a sales position.
unless we allow it via passivity or weariness.
As in Obama/Biden and McCain/ Palin with not a pennies difference between the one thing that mattered most...governance of the FIRE sector and policy
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
The answer has been clear by a wide margin:
Statements of ringingly delivered clear oxymorons. Like:
" we must go all out in the pursuit of peace but do all our military needs in the meantime"
Or:
We must make it a national mission to reach much higher revolutionary new national standards for education of our young people but leave it to our existing experts at the local level"
that kind of pablum gets both sides of the aisles standing and cheering.
Quote:
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
Quote:
I'm not even so sure if that was a lie as much as it was a complete lack of understanding that some people actually like having crappy and inadequate health insurance.
In other words, it is Ok for me to lie to you because I know better than you.
Actually If you are paying for health insurance that literally did not insure you at all then yes the President knows better than you.
but it is better to catch the President in a "lie" than understand that you previous paid for "insurance" that literally was not insurance.
In concept most of these were suppose to have been Grandfathered in. However, the Presidents message should have been nuanced. We can argue that people don't pay attention unless the message can fit on a bumper sticker or would only confuse, but in truth you have to concede the President lied by omission.
Your policy was suppose to have been Grandfathered, if the insurance company had not made changes making it worse as of 2010 and you had the policy for at least a year. The Adminstration hurt themselves when the rules were written by to narrowly defining whats a change. For example, if there was a minimal increase in co-pay, it was excluded. Whether the President was aware who knows? But clearly would have known policies were not going to make the cut.
There also was never any mention that insurance companies may chose to cancel because they were not going to be able to offer these policies to new buyers. Insurances Co. clearly took advantage. It was to their economic benefit. Better PR, blame it on Obamacare than cancel later. Obviously, the President couldn't control companies in this regard, but would know it would happen.
Quote:
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
Quote:
In comment 12385188 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
maternity coverage for my 60 yer old wife. Who knew? Thank you for having my back, Mr. President.
I guess you no longer need it because of your vasectomy. Was that covered?
Ha. Sorry guys but in my state NJ, Obamacare worked. Insurance costs went down by I think 5% on average.
Reason was policy requirements already similar to Obamacare. Rather than having insurance rates spike depending on age or circumstance, better to pay over lifetime. Easier to afford, more people insured everyone in the long term benefits.
I am not a republican or democrat, I vote on the candidate. But, HRC has been a compulsive and pathological liar about getting caught her entire career. Whether it was with that commodities deal, the travelgate nonsense, the papers from Whitewater mysteriously disappearing and the reappearing in the White House, "the vast right wing conspiracy," being under Sniper Fire in Bosnia (which was the same things Brian Williams did) to now this. And, I am sure I missed a few things. With this new thing, she has lied repeatedly from the private server because she didn't like carrying to devices, to not being subpoenaed, to saying she didn't solicit emails from Blumenthal (which there is proof she did), to saying she didn't pass along classified information. they surveyed 40 emails and found four instances of classified information. Who know how many more they will find.
I am sure the democrats can find a better candidate, who in the words of William Safire, is not a "congenital liar"
The whole conversation has twisted. Originally HH just wanted lies and now it's a Big Brother justification of lies...I guess to say it's not really a lie.
Beyond that, we mentioned other lies, which he won't accept and we mentioned a myriad of lies by people who speak for him, which I'm still agog that he thinks that's somehow different. And that's after saying the lies were b cause it's Congress's fault.
But, I agree with the point about it being different than HRC. I said before, I think Obama lies so that h can force his ideological ends and make people think bad stuff is really cool stuff. Whereas, HRC lies purely to further her personal ambition.
Hillary and Bill Clinton are truly about themselves. One day, they will be the cheerleaders for Wall Street if it will get money or a vote, the next day they will burn Wall Street if it will get them a vote. They are shameless and are in the game to be in the game, not to help American.
Hillary is basically running against everything she helped create in the 90s, Welfare reform, the criminal justice bill, DOMA, repealing Glass-Steagal, and the list goes on and on. The Clintons have no shame and now pretend to be the biggest cheerleaders for the other sides of things they passed in the 90s. It is disgraceful. I really hope the Dems can get another candidate, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore, Joe Biden. But, please, no Hillary.
I gave you his interview on Jon Stewart where he said unequivocally that no conservative groups were treated differently by the IRS which is directly contradicted by a Congressional committee, a judge, and the head of the IRS, but you dismissed that. I brought up his UN and other speeches on Benghazi as well as responses by Carney and Rice linking the attack to a video but you dismissed that. On Iran among other things Ernest specifically said anytime, anywhere for inspections.
Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.
In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. "There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate," he said. "It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise. We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient."
By the way, not that it is a justification, but the estimate is that only 2% of people who were insured couldn't get their old plans grandfathered in after the full policy took effect and the higher standards were set in place.
Mis representations?
Deceptions?
Vital incompleteness?
Answering the precise question and not the spirit of the question?
Deflecting the answer?
Answering a different question than what was asked and relaying on deference for ones position to not get a tight follow up question to a non answer?
Bullshit?
Whats the person who uses all of the above called in everyday plain spoken insight?
Deceiving?
Ok so Presidents don't lie ( except Nixon) in a way that is on record. So you are happy with deception from a position you depend on.... as long as you cannot find a blatant and deliberate lie?
We do agree that deception is more insidious and more problematically toxic than a lie you outright caught?
Yes, we are too stupid to realize that we liked the insurance we had which my not have been perfect but cost less and gave us better coverage than what we have now.
It's this elitist attitude that liberals have that drives people crazy. And it DOES NOT excuse the outright deliberate lie about Obamacare. That kind of attitude is disgusting.
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit.
Link - ( New Window )
Flat out lies?
Never subopenaed? She was
Deleted only private emails? Recovered emails from Blumenthal's account prove she did delete business emails.
Said she never solicited emails from Blumenthal? Recovered Blumenthal emails has her emailing him "keep em coming"
Said she never passed along classified information on private server? 40 documents were sampled and 4 instances of classified info that was classified at the time were sent by her over the server.
And, the Whitewater prosecutor wrote an indictment up about her lying to th grand jury but never submitted it because he didn't want to go after the president's wife.
And, of course, she said she got off the Tarmac in Bosnia under gun fire, but the tape undeniably shows her laughing and under no gun fire. Brian Williams was fired for the same stuff.
I think politicians of both parties take things to the edge, I think she is pathological. In any event, to say she has never flat out lied and only bright it up to th edge is not accurate. She has lied.
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources.
Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
I'm pretty sure I know what it means. And you personify it.
Quote:
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
Lighten up, it was a joke. But it does amaze the lengths some will go to to defend Obama (it's ok that he lied because he knows better!' and Hillary.
I've got no issue with who you support. Make your own choice.
And win or lose a similar number will vote for whatever name ends up on the R line. And the country loses either way, IMHO
Quote:
In comment 12385255 buford said:
Quote:
Admit it, Dems: Hillary Could Strangle a Puppy on Live TV, and You’d Still Back Her (UPDATED: It's worse than you think)
Democrats don't give a "fart" about legally required government email transparency, as even Democrats now admit. Link - ( New Window )
I find your posts totally amusing. That lack of any measured balance is amazing.
OMG, GWB adminstration had its own e-mail controversy. Private Domain Server in WH not backed up to save all e-mails. Potentially, millions of emails lost. People lied. Damaging emails found via other sources. Some emails erroneously sent to parody site. OMG.
Link below is Wikipedia but this was long and complex story which went many ways. It does however have many links to sources. Bush WH email controversy - ( New Window )
Lighten up, it was a joke. But it does amaze the lengths some will go to to defend Obama (it's ok that he lied because he knows better!' and Hillary.
Read my 10:40 post I agreed the President lied.
As to HRC, my only point on the other thread was to counter she is "Mrs. Clinton" and as such should just be dismissed. She has a resume of her own. Was not advocating for her. In fact I made it clear have no idea who I'm going to vote for. To early to just cross candidates off list. Well except for Trump
So carry on Buford.
Kasich is a liar
Quote:
Kasich as President. I would not vote for a ticket where he was VP for say Walker Bush or Rubio
Kasich is a liar
Quote:
In comment 12385306 Headhunter said:
Quote:
Kasich as President. I would not vote for a ticket where he was VP for say Walker Bush or Rubio
Kasich is a liar
Examples in his own words?
lol, just busting chops
Of course, she is demanding limited questions. So either she wont show or we will find nothing new. Wonderful.
Of course, she is demanding limited questions. So either she wont show or we will find nothing new. Wonderful.
I assume this is all going to be off the cuff. She hasn't had time to rehearse anything
we do need a 14th hearing about Bengazi even though the administration has already been cleared of any wrong doing last November by republican lead House Intelligence Committee
Name me one president who has not lied?
Outrage is fine, as long as it's not applied via double standards.
Name me one president who has not lied?
Great example of Moynahan's defining deviancy down.