NFT: HRC scenarios

always been obsessed with $. I don't think anyone would argue that.

or someone is parsing every word to be technically telling the truth. She has lost me, you either fess up and move on or you don't. She hasn't, I'm done with her

In comment 12429836 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

But the Clintons, unlike the Bushes or Kennedys, were not very wealthy prior to entering politics & they had some pretty big legal bills after some of the investigations (most of which were partisan witch hunts that the national media played along with) in the '90s.

One of the problems in politics are people getting wealthy while in office. I don't have a problem with books and speeches. But it's obvious that the Clintons were selling access. And others, like Harry Reid, who become multi-millionaires because of their positions are despicable.

In comment 12429775 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

I doubt he becomes the nominee, but if I'm a Republican, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that not only is he pulling the party further to the ring, there's a growing possibly he runs as a 3rd party, in which case HRC is going to win pretty easily.

I think this is an interesting point for discussion. I also don't think he wins the nomination, but am curious about his influence on the nomination process.

I think having him in serves as a distraction, which potentially could favor Repubs. Generally speaking, the nomination process seems to drive all candidates in either party away from the center. This isn't the case with the Dems as Hillary is the presumed nominee and can afford to stay in the center. But with the "19 and counting" or whatever number of Repubs are in the race one would expect to see a race to prove the "true conservatives". Bush tried that tactic with Trump this week.

I think Trump being in allows the candidates to continue campaigning without having to attack one another and move away from the center. They can focus on attacking Trump as the front runner and HRC. The field will eventually narrow without a consensus leader until Trump decides to bow out. Depending on how long he's willing to stay in the race, the prize will go to whoever has the staying power, meaning the most success raising funds. This has less to do with campaign rhetoric and more to do with campaign organizational strength and win-ability in a general vs. HRC.

Which I believe helps the eventual nominee in the long run.

Anyway, that's my amateur opinion of what might happen.

You sound exactly like Cosmo Kramer taking about "write offs"

In comment 12429775 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

I there's a growing possibly he runs as a 3rd party

I don't know why you think the possibility is growing. I think that every day he spends as a Republican instead of setting up for an independent run in every State the possibility shrinks.

that we end up with a Trump/Biden election. If HRC continues to show weakness in the polls , I think Biden jumps in.

And I mam beginning to think that Trump might get the nomination, because his ceiling is rising, because he will pick up Carson/Cruz voters, and because all of the other candidates with a shot are showing much weaker than expected. Bush is a mess. I didn't expect that. Walker is a mness. I did expect that. Who else is there with a national backing? Kasich? I wish.

there is a lot of anger and frustration with Washington. The politicians
shut down the government and give us the big middle finger. They do everything for partisan reasons while we are drowning and looking for answers. Pay back is a bitch

In comment 12429881 Headhunter said:

Quote:

You sound exactly like Cosmo Kramer taking about "write offs"

Just in case you haven't heard Kramer on the subject of write-offs - ( New Window )

Trump has tapped into something. There's a lot of disgust for career politicians. So, if it's Bush vs. Clinton, I think he runs and he'll be a factor. He owes the GOP nothing.

In comment 12429947 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Trump has tapped into something. There's a lot of disgust for career politicians. So, if it's Bush vs. Clinton, I think he runs and he'll be a factor. He owes the GOP nothing.

I agree that there is a lot of disgust with politicians, but I don't agree it's as broad or as deep as most people think. People will bitch, but still end up wanting to vote for someone with "experience", a proven track record in government, and that's who the career pols are.
As to Trump's intentions, I can't speak to them. Is he someone who wants to go down in history as a spoiler? If he waits to see who the nominees are (assuming he's not one) it becomes very difficult to get on the ballot in enough states to actually have a numerical chance to win. Anyone who wants to make a serious 3rd party run needs to be working in that direction now.

In comment 12429881 Headhunter said:

Quote:

You sound exactly like Cosmo Kramer taking about "write offs"

Hey, that is straight from your hero Trump's mouth. He buys politicians to get access.

In comment 12429960 Bill in UT said:

Quote:

In comment 12429947 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said: Quote: Trump has tapped into something. There's a lot of disgust for career politicians. So, if it's Bush vs. Clinton, I think he runs and he'll be a factor. He owes the GOP nothing. I agree that there is a lot of disgust with politicians, but I don't agree it's as broad or as deep as most people think. People will bitch, but still end up wanting to vote for someone with "experience", a proven track record in government, and that's who the career pols are. As to Trump's intentions, I can't speak to them. Is he someone who wants to go down in history as a spoiler? If he waits to see who the nominees are (assuming he's not one) it becomes very difficult to get on the ballot in enough states to actually have a numerical chance to win. Anyone who wants to make a serious 3rd party run needs to be working in that direction now.

Listening to him yesterday, he sounds like he really wants it. After all, it's the ultimate CEO job. He went on about how his kids could run his hotels etc while he was in office and he's already given up the Apprentice. Of course, he could change his mind.

What does it have to do with the Clintons? Who are you getting access to? And of course you will document your answer with proof

you can't be that stupid. Wait, you can and you display that on a daily basis.....

tolerated by the people that run this place. 7 out of 10 times you repeat what Mark Kevin told you to say. You don't have an original thought in your fucking head. You are a fucking parrot of talk radio. You are a fucking dummy that brings not but bullshit. You would know a fact if it punched you in your stupid fucking face

.

,

.

buford isn't nearly that smart.

but when is enough, enough?

Every other candidate in the race is beholden to donors. They don't have an original thought in their head. Save for maybe Rand Paul. You aren't getting anything scarier than carreer politicians.

The main question is who should be more fearful, Democrats or Republicans.

Having the selling skills to get a majority of disaffected voters to vote for you and having the knowledge, skillset and temperament necessary to govern are two entirely different questions. Trump as commander in chief? Right. Trump being able to handle a hard-right-dominated House of Representatives? Never.

And does anyone really know what his governing philosophy would be? Can you really assume he will stay to the right once elected? Why would he?

Why do you think a guy like Marco Rubio Martin O'Malley Scott Walker Bill Clinton get elected and they are these Commander in Chiefs and have Presidential bearing the minute they are sworn in? It's a joke that all these "legitimate" candidate go from moths to Monarch butterflies when they take over. You really think Trump would start making prank phone calls on the red phone or order the military to play Simon Says.

In comment 12430141 manh george said:

Quote:

The main question is who should be more fearful, Democrats or Republicans. Having the selling skills to get a majority of disaffected voters to vote for you and having the knowledge, skillset and temperament necessary to govern are two entirely different questions. Trump as commander in chief? Right. Trump being able to handle a hard-right-dominated House of Representatives? Never. And does anyone really know what his governing philosophy would be? Can you really assume he will stay to the right once elected? Why would he?

George he has run multi-billion dollar corporations. He'd be ok. At leaSt he has actually done that.

In dealing with the House I'm sure there would be alot of - "You're Fired". He'll go to every district in the nation and campaign against all incumbents with the theme of "Throw The Bum Out". Voters, wondering why no one has ever thought of this before, will think President Trump a genius. The unimaginable will be achieved completely all new Congressmen or should we say new Apprentices. The Senate will see this all play out and realize that maybe they should act on all the Presidents appointments. All appointed positions will be filled i.e. Federal Judges, Ambassadors, Directors of Agencies. Once again people are amazed. It looks like the Federal Government is actually working.

Now of course I'm saying this all in jest, but you have to admit this wouldn't be a bad thing:)

But come on. The dude is a joke. His answer to everything is 'I'll do better' without actually saying what he would do is comical. If he starts putting some meat on the bones, that'd be something. But until then...

Release an immigration plan. I think it's completely absurd, but he did put forth his views on paper. And he has every Republican responding to him.

He is dominating the convo. He is sticking around for awhile. He is not a summer fad.

His Presidency will look like the Bush Presidency. He has no pool of independent talent to fill all his appointed positions with. It will all be filled with Republican hacks, unless he wants to come across as bipartisan, in which case there will be Dem hacks as well. The one thing I can see him contributing is an ability to get TV time and go the the people to push his policies.

In comment 12430256 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

But come on. The dude is a joke. His answer to everything is 'I'll do better' without actually saying what he would do is comical. If he starts putting some meat on the bones, that'd be something. But until then...

Did you find it entertaining in '08 when Obama basically did the same thing?

In comment 12429793 Deej said:

Quote:

In comment 12429738 dep026 said: Quote: and say I know all the legalities of server-gate. just what I read here and on the news. but if you don't think she crossed the line and is trying to hide something, well I have a bridge to sell to you. Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately. I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own. So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate.

You're better than this bullshit. If she didn't want her personal emails to be subject to FOIA, it would have been easy enough to do what every other fucking person in America does and route her personal email through a personal email account and a work email through a State Department email account. Might you accidentally send a work email through a personal account or a personal email through a work account? Sure, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. But that isn't what this is about. You're too smart to look seriously at this situation and think this was about keeping nosy Congressmen from seeing her email exchange with Chelsea about baby clothes. Don't become one of the other folks on this thread (and you know which ones), willing to bend every set of facts to suit a narrative. She did this to avoid scrutiny; the extent of her wrongdoing and what sort of sanction is reasonable remains to be seen.

But remember, she voluntarily took the Secretary of State job. Plenty of people have declined consequential political posts to preserve their privacy. She could have done so.

In comment 12430765 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12429793 Deej said: Quote: In comment 12429738 dep026 said: Quote: and say I know all the legalities of server-gate. just what I read here and on the news. but if you don't think she crossed the line and is trying to hide something, well I have a bridge to sell to you. Her top secret daughters wedding plans needed to be cleaned immediately. I dont think she has something to hide. Just like 300 million other Americans, I think she didnt want Congress and the media snooping around in her personal emails. So after they did the FOIA related review, she had her aides wipe the server. She didnt need the other emails or even want them. Makes sense to me since I never go back into old personal emails. And the risk was that some stupid judge or congressional committee would wrongfully make her turn over personal emails just because, which are nobody's business but her own. So when are you making all of your personal emails public? How about the personal emails and records of every republican candidate. You're better than this bullshit. If she didn't want her personal emails to be subject to FOIA, it would have been easy enough to do what every other fucking person in America does and route her personal email through a personal email account and a work email through a State Department email account. Might you accidentally send a work email through a personal account or a personal email through a work account? Sure, and it wouldn't be the end of the world. But that isn't what this is about. You're too smart to look seriously at this situation and think this was about keeping nosy Congressmen from seeing her email exchange with Chelsea about baby clothes. Don't become one of the other folks on this thread (and you know which ones), willing to bend every set of facts to suit a narrative. She did this to avoid scrutiny; the extent of her wrongdoing and what sort of sanction is reasonable remains to be seen. But remember, she voluntarily took the Secretary of State job. Plenty of people have declined consequential political posts to preserve their privacy. She could have done so.

You have to admit, it's really tough having two cell phones. Or finding a way to have your cell phone access two email accounts.

that are labeled Top Secret had to be taken from a system that does not email, so they had to be physically removed (either printed or on a thumb drive) and then uploaded and emailed to Clinton's server. That shows that they knew the information was Top Secret. I don't see how she gets around that.

in part to avoid scrutiny. A bit part of it was also probably to avoid Hatch Act problems. That's also why the Bush White House had 20+ million emails on an RNC server (which they also destroyed in the face of an investigation, w/o even trying to sift out the records that needed to be preserved). These reasons are also probably why Jeb, Jindal, Perry, and Walker have all used private email for work related functions while in office.

It may seem crazy to you, and not ideal to me, but politicians of both parties seem to do public work on private emails. Again, I assume it is in part to avoid scrutiny. So fucking what? If (and that's a big if) they comply with the rules for handling/preserving emails, and in HRC's case that is complicated by state secrecy issues, I dont really care.

Frankly, I think there is a decent argument to make that FOIA requests shouldnt cover emails, but only more formal authored documents (FOIA, like civil litigation discovery rules, was not written with email in mind). But even putting that aside, if I was in office I would strongly consider setting up a system to stymie overreaching, politicized investigations where my political opponents demand to see a whole server, regardless of relevance (as Gowdy is doing here in the perpetual Benghazi investigation).
Link - ( New Window )

and I found it to be a pain in the ass. I remember when my old job switched the policy and let people check work email on personal phones. Like half the lawyers had new smart phones within a month.

I think you focused on my "I dont think she has something to hide" comment. I didnt explain that well. I dont think that there was some big secret in the other 30k in emails that she didnt turn over and deleted. People just jump to the conclusion that there must have been bad stuff in there and she was desperate to destroy it. Sure, that's possible. But it just seems a lot more likely to me that those emails were not turned over because someone (HRC/aide) made a judgment call that they werent covered by the records act. Just because an email exists does not mean that it must be turned over regardless of content.

should trouble us. By itself not necessarily a dealbreaker, though it's not as though Hillary has a sterling reputation for honesty to begin with. Having classified material on a server you set up to do an end run around FOIA and the Hatch Act, taking no steps to mitigate that harm (by reporting the presence of classified material on an unclassified server) should infuriate us. As others have said repeatedly, if this was random peon in the DOS or in uniform, this would be grounds for separation, for disciplinary action and even for incarceration. Why does serial violations by someone who absolutely should know better - and who was in a position to really damage the country with disclosures because her access is likely far less compartmentalized than the SMEs she relied upon - warrant lesser treatment?

Its really the tension between Hatch and public email usage. Pols are terrified of running afoul of the Hatch Act (prohibition on using public resources for political purposes). So the HRC, Bush/RNC emails arent an end run around Hatch -- they're an attempt at compliance.

Look, I take a lawyer's view of things because that's what I am. Rules are set up, and you abide by the rules you're ok. Speed limit is 55, then driving 54 is ok. No brownie points for driving 25 JUST TO BE SURE.

As for the HRC issue, my understanding is that none of the emails identified so far were marked confidential. I dont think you can get on someone much for receiving emails that 4 years later are deemed confidential. Now if there is a category of stuff that is confidential regardless of designation then that's different, and I'd have to think about it.

I do know that it's good that the Obama Admin banned these private servers post-HRC. It's a stupid thing to allow. For the rest, I'll wait to see how this sorts out. Public officials "break the law" all the time. On a practical level it happens, sometimes by accident and sometimes to test the contours of the law. It's part of the process. It's why we have court cases re gov't action. Once we know the facts (and given all the false ledes, I'll wait for something official), I can pass my own judgment on whether she has done something disqualifying her from my vote.

is always going to be classified. There is no mistaking it. And the removal of classified tags from classified material doesn't happen by accident, that's just not how these things work. Someone did this and transmitted it to Hillary, that's simply a brazen disregard for classified information. And to anyone who understands how these things work, there is no plausible deniability. There is criminal behavior and there are almost certainly intervening layers who acted criminally in looking the other way. Eric clearly hates Hillary, but he's telling you good information about classified material on this thread.

about the content of the emails. I'll look for it tomorrow. It's fairly time consuming because Im at a pretty low point in trusting new reports/analysis these days. There has been so much disinformation flowing that it is mind boggling. Especially on the Hillary email issue (the NY Times has done itself a great disservice). Similarly there is so much bullshit floating around about the Iran deal.

Hey, four of them went bankrupt, but since he got out without a scratch, that makes him leadership material, right?

And Headhunter, as far as your list of Marco Rubio Martin O'Malley Scott Walker Bill Clinton, one stands out as actually having been a leader before going on to be president. Yup: Bill Clinton, who was the single most influential member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which kept the Democratic party from listing over too far to the left in the late 1980's/early 1990's.

Trumps biggest challenge, if he were to win, would be in finding real talent to fill the major governmental leadership roles. This is one of the things that sunk Jimmy Carter--all he had was the Georgia Mafia. And George W. was too beholden to neocons who helped drive him into the Iraqi war. Leadership and quality Washington relationships actually matter if you become president. Trump doesn;t have any, and he can;t buy them.,

with:

-- gaffs not mattering so much if you run against Trump; and

--Hillary's e-mail troubles sapping a lot of her strength,

I would guess that the odds of Biden jumping in are getting over 50%. Washington Week this weekend made it sound as if the litany of e-mail stories is likely to go on almost daily for many months. They had no reason to exaggerate, and if she can't get ahead of that, the Dems need an alternative.

There is an awful lot of liberal/moderate super-PAC money sitting on the sidelines right now, which could give Biden a very quick start. That money isn't going to the current Democratic lightweights fighting Hillary. If Biden comes in and the e-mail barrage continues, I could even see her dropping out by early next year.

The NY Times would love to see this scenario, and they will keep pushing it, I suspect. (link)
Link - ( New Window )

was he was 1 helicopter short at the Iranian Embassy

economy.

that is rather less than positive. A lot of miles to go before he sleeps, I'm sure, but might this be the beginning of his sputtering out?
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12431141 manh george said:

Quote:

with: -- gaffs not mattering so much if you run against Trump; and --Hillary's e-mail troubles sapping a lot of her strength, I would guess that the odds of Biden jumping in are getting over 50%. Washington Week this weekend made it sound as if the litany of e-mail stories is likely to go on almost daily for many months. They had no reason to exaggerate, and if she can't get ahead of that, the Dems need an alternative. There is an awful lot of liberal/moderate super-PAC money sitting on the sidelines right now, which could give Biden a very quick start. That money isn't going to the current Democratic lightweights fighting Hillary. If Biden comes in and the e-mail barrage continues, I could even see her dropping out by early next year. The NY Times would love to see this scenario, and they will keep pushing it, I suspect. (link) Link - ( New Window )

Biden is a walking gag reel. He's not Trump, but he won't be running against Trump. His opposition ads will write themselves. And this is not to say that the Republicans who might be up against him don't have huge negatives of their own, or that he won't acquit himself reasonably well in a debate, but do you really want to hang your hat on that?

In comment 12431217 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

that is rather less than positive. A lot of miles to go before he sleeps, I'm sure, but might this be the beginning of his sputtering out? Link - ( New Window )

That was pretty much my impression.

the Dems have better options than Warren and Biden. They have some governors who could have broad appeal (PA, WV, CO, NY...)

In comment 12431231 Deej said:

Quote:

the Dems have better options than Warren and Biden. They have some governors who could have broad appeal (PA, WV, CO, NY...)

Who are some of these names? I think candidates like Warren have some of the same negatives as Bernie, enthusiasm but a lack of broad appeal. Who are some of the folks you think would shine if given the chance?

entertainment. The only reason why he's doing well in the polls is because of name recognition and he has the $$ to play the game. He's received more attention than he deserves. It's only the result of his outrageous style of "message". Once the shock has worn off, it will be just like watching TV repeats when the shows weren't good to begin with.

Just my opinion, but enjoy the popcorn while it lasts.