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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'
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.