Which of these is most likely?
The FBI conducts a thorough review of Ms.Clinton's computer and thumb drive and clears her of destroying or hiding public documents.
The FBI finds evidence of destruction or hiding public documents
This is a sham investigation to allow the justice department to take the email question out of the campaign
What is your problem? You seem like a very weird and angry man all the time. Best of luck to you. I'm going to stop engaging you from now on.
Selective data. I love it. It's like the actuary who's asked how much 1+1 is. His reponse: "How much do you want it to be?"
In sheer national popular elections with high turnouts, Democrats have an advantage, and it's growing. In state and local elections Republicans have a substantial advantage, and it may even be stable for now although eventually demographics may turn it, very very slowly. Districting dramatically favors Republicans in Congressional races. At the state and local level, tax/spending issues favor Republicans, and will for the foreseeable future.
If Hillary were a strong candidate, this would be virtually over already. And, she would be sweeping a Senatorial majority back in with her. As it is, it isn't a done deal, but Democrats start with a big advantage in major national elections. The Senate is starting off very close, but the Democrats are likely to win it back if Hillary wins and their candidates end up strong enough. Otherwise, not.
The House could take 20 years or more.
What makes Biden such a virtuous man?
This e-mail "scandal" is following the same pattern. A lot of wild accusations are flying around. There's a lot of bad/lazy reporting by the press. The usual suspecta are ginning up outrage and demanding investigations/prosecutions/firing squads and then it turns it it was nothing after all and then it all goes away until the next time.
I'm not particularly interested in going over the details of the current imbroglio any more than I'm interested in chatting with anti-vaxxers or young-earth creationists because I know there's literally nothing I could say or do that would have any effect on their opinion.
There are a lot of people out there who really really hate the Clintons and who have been looking for something to bring them down for over two decades. It amuses me to think that what they've done, at this point, is essentially inoculate them against pretty much any accusation of wrongdoing. HRC could shoot a man dead in the Rose Garden, in full view of the press, and a lot of people would still think it was some kind of right-wing scam to bring her down.
I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I'm not all that excited about the prospect of her and all the Clinton drama moving into the White House. But it does give me a little satisfaction to know that, if she takes the oath of office on Jan 20, 2017, a lot of people's heads are just going to explode.
He wasn't 100% correct, he was full of shit. There were Communists, past and present, in government but he never had a list of them and his treatment of Marshall was indecent.
Not sure if that's a typo or your math is poor. GOP has lost 4 of last six, won 5 of last 9
And btw, HRC owes the NYTimes an apology.
If you're even remotely interested in the "McCarthy era," there is a fantastic book by Whittaker Chambers, "Witness." It was vilified as a book of lies. When the Venona Project and the Venona Papers were released in the mid-90's, it validated all of the major points in Chambers book...
This e-mail "scandal" is following the same pattern. A lot of wild accusations are flying around. There's a lot of bad/lazy reporting by the press. The usual suspecta are ginning up outrage and demanding investigations/prosecutions/firing squads and then it turns it it was nothing after all and then it all goes away until the next time.
I'm not particularly interested in going over the details of the current imbroglio any more than I'm interested in chatting with anti-vaxxers or young-earth creationists because I know there's literally nothing I could say or do that would have any effect on their opinion.
There are a lot of people out there who really really hate the Clintons and who have been looking for something to bring them down for over two decades. It amuses me to think that what they've done, at this point, is essentially inoculate them against pretty much any accusation of wrongdoing. HRC could shoot a man dead in the Rose Garden, in full view of the press, and a lot of people would still think it was some kind of right-wing scam to bring her down.
I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I'm not all that excited about the prospect of her and all the Clinton drama moving into the White House. But it does give me a little satisfaction to know that, if she takes the oath of office on Jan 20, 2017, a lot of people's heads are just going to explode.
While the right has handled her umpteen scandals in idiotic fashion, her greatest asset remains sycophants who dismiss any criticism of her as analogous to Vince Foster and death lists. She is being roundly criticized for this because even if the most charitable interpretation is accepted she still exercised terrible judgment and hubris.
I've gotta go with the Trumpster
Quote:
The country is moving left. Adapt or wither away. The Dems had their come to Jesus moment after Mondale. I think you guys will next November.
Not sure if that's a typo or your math is poor. GOP has lost 4 of last six, won 5 of last 9
They've received less votes in five of the last six, I think that's what he meant.
Quote:
In comment 12414680 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
The country is moving left. Adapt or wither away. The Dems had their come to Jesus moment after Mondale. I think you guys will next November.
Not sure if that's a typo or your math is poor. GOP has lost 4 of last six, won 5 of last 9
They've received less votes in five of the last six, I think that's what he meant.
ok, but I don't think that makes Algore feel and better
Quote:
I haven't followed this real closely because I'm weary of chasing Hillary if there's no substance there. But this is my take from what I've seen. For a period of time, at least several years, Hillary got ALL State Dept. emails sent to her server. Hillary says she saw nothing during that time that she believed to be classified. So the inference for me is that Hillary is saying that during that several year period the State Dept. sent nothing to her that was classified. Is it normal or even reasonable that the Dept. would send nothing to the Secretary over that long a time frame that's classified? I thought the State Dept. deals with lots of classified stuff. Maybe she can say she doesn't know about individual items, but does it stretch credulity for her to assume she got no classified documents?
no, it's definitive that they sent her things that were classified and fen top secret. But as far as we know now, they weren't labeled classified and she was unable to discern if the material was secret or sensitive or not.
So if they wanted her to see a classified document, how did they get it to her?
Seeing that she was almost never in the country, it must have been a chore getting hard copies to her in a timely manner without faxing them. ok, whatever
This e-mail "scandal" is following the same pattern. A lot of wild accusations are flying around. There's a lot of bad/lazy reporting by the press. The usual suspecta are ginning up outrage and demanding investigations/prosecutions/firing squads and then it turns it it was nothing after all and then it all goes away until the next time.
I'm not particularly interested in going over the details of the current imbroglio any more than I'm interested in chatting with anti-vaxxers or young-earth creationists because I know there's literally nothing I could say or do that would have any effect on their opinion.
There are a lot of people out there who really really hate the Clintons and who have been looking for something to bring them down for over two decades. It amuses me to think that what they've done, at this point, is essentially inoculate them against pretty much any accusation of wrongdoing. HRC could shoot a man dead in the Rose Garden, in full view of the press, and a lot of people would still think it was some kind of right-wing scam to bring her down.
I'm not a big Hillary fan myself. I'm not all that excited about the prospect of her and all the Clinton drama moving into the White House. But it does give me a little satisfaction to know that, if she takes the oath of office on Jan 20, 2017, a lot of people's heads are just going to explode.
So, if I get this right, you have two people who have time and time again made questionable personal judgments, but because their opponents have taken it too far sometimes, their supporters let her get away with anything. I don't know, that sounds kind of weak to me. Shouldn't her supporters have a moral compass? At what point is enough enough with these two. Lying to grand juries and depositions under oath, the mark rich stuff, Hillary did exactly what Brian Williams did. You don't have to be a wingnut and believe Vince Foster conspiracy theories or bogus rape allegations against Bill to believe to know these are not honest people. At bottom, these two think they are not subject to the law; they think the rules that apply to us do not apply to everyone. Nixon felt that way, too. i am not saying Hillary will operate a political espionage scheme, like Nixon did, but it is really dangerous to have leaders who do not believe the law applies to them.
Not one Hillary supporter on this thread has explained the indisputable lies she has said in her defense.
I would issue arrest warrants for the State Department officials who have covered this up as well. But we know that won't happen.
BTW, it these were already TOP SECRET classified documents, which the inspector general's report says, then there is absolutely no way she did not know these were not top secret documents. As I said above, not only are all classified documents clearly marked, but each paragraph within the document is usually marked (i.e., if a paragraph contains SECRET information, the paragraph will start off with [S] before the text.
Quote:
Dana Perino was talking about this on the 5 earlier. She said that she had top secret clearance and for that type of material she was not allowed for it to ever be on her computer. She had to physically go into a secure room next log into a specific computer where the material was housed. She said it was a PIA so she always had hard copies delivered to her instead. It is possible that the same happened with Clinton.
Seeing that she was almost never in the country, it must have been a chore getting hard copies to her in a timely manner without faxing them. ok, whatever
I don't pretend to understand exactly how things were done, but one would assume the vast majority of the classified material she received WAS given to her in person, in hard copy and/or through briefings. So it's not an implication that there were hundreds upon hundreds of classified documents sent to her private server, rather that a handful were, and/or that a good deal more sensitive material, some of it subsequently classified, was sent as well. And that even if it's just the latter it is very problematic because SHE made it happen by insisting on having a private server located in her house. And her explanations for doing so - not wanting to carry multiple devices - are just silly, something that none of you would accept (nor should you accept) from someone you didn't like.
Why Bill Clinton lied under oath and surrendered his law license rather than face prosecution. Why would I think this will end her career when that, the rich pardon, the racist comments after the sc primary have not.
But I think we're getting caught up in the weeds on all of this.
The real problem is she conducted Cabinet-level USG business on a private server and through private e-mail, not a secured USG system/account. There is no way for her to do her job without using this system to read and produced classified material. It's the nature of her position as the nation's top diplomat.
Her e-mails had to contain the most sensitive foreign policy material we had, and she chose not to protect it properly despite all of the rules and regulations put into place to do so. She had to sign her name and swear she would not do these types of things as part of her security clearance. And she did it anyways.
That's the real issue.
off top of head ... Prez Bush with Harken. Christie getting his bro to get away scot free when rest of company indicted. rubio mixing campaign money and personal debts. cruz willing to default on us debt to advance his personal agenda.
they are all terrible. i'll just vote for the unethical scum who is closer to stuff i believe in than the other side. i hate hilary. she is just better to me than the alternatives.
But I think we're getting caught up in the weeds on all of this.
The real problem is she conducted Cabinet-level USG business on a private server and through private e-mail, not a secured USG system/account. There is no way for her to do her job without using this system to read and produced classified material. It's the nature of her position as the nation's top diplomat.
Her e-mails had to contain the most sensitive foreign policy material we had, and she chose not to protect it properly despite all of the rules and regulations put into place to do so. She had to sign her name and swear she would not do these types of things as part of her security clearance. And she did it anyways.
That's the real issue.
I am surprised more people aren't appalled at this and it isn't a bigger story in the news.
But then this is probably the outcome of years of endless bashing and going after the Clintons for anything and everything by so many; the country has become desensitized to it so when there is something to genuinely be aghast about we get little reaction from much of the nation.
This should be a big deal and not because it's Hilary but because of the position she held.
But I think we're getting caught up in the weeds on all of this.
The real problem is she conducted Cabinet-level USG business on a private server and through private e-mail, not a secured USG system/account. There is no way for her to do her job without using this system to read and produced classified material. It's the nature of her position as the nation's top diplomat.
Her e-mails had to contain the most sensitive foreign policy material we had, and she chose not to protect it properly despite all of the rules and regulations put into place to do so. She had to sign her name and swear she would not do these types of things as part of her security clearance. And she did it anyways.
That's the real issue.
Plainly, you're right. It is a brazen breech of security. However, in some ways, I think the opposite is true--ie, that the classified Information is the weeds. I am no Republican, and have voted for more Democrats than Republicans, but what I see as the big picture is their long history of deceiving the American people and their belief that they could do it anytime. To me, that is the undeniable lesson of Watergate. If we don't hold our leaders to some standards, we get these brazen breaches, not out of malice, but out of hubris that the rules somehow don't apply to them. To me that is the big picture in this whole thing.
If you go through all that like the never ending Benghazi hearings that proved a great rally cry but no breaking of the law. She beats this, what is your next move after making her a sympathetic figure being picked on by a party with a fail agenda?
If you go through all that like the never ending Benghazi hearings that proved a great rally cry but no breaking of the law. She beats this, what is your next move after making her a sympathetic figure being picked on by a party with a fail agenda?
Nobody knows what's on the hard drive, if anything. And frankly, nobody knows what the DOJ would do with evidence of minor wrongdoing. Petraeus was charged for what may (or may not, IDK) have been a lesser breach, but there were certainly aggravating circumstances about how and why he did that.
I would issue arrest warrants for the State Department officials who have covered this up as well. But we know that won't happen.
BTW, it these were already TOP SECRET classified documents, which the inspector general's report says, then there is absolutely no way she did not know these were not top secret documents. As I said above, not only are all classified documents clearly marked, but each paragraph within the document is usually marked (i.e., if a paragraph contains SECRET information, the paragraph will start off with [S] before the text.
Eric If she knowingly mis-handled secret documents you have ever right to be outraged. However, when you take into context what Dana Perino is saying and what the State Department is saying as reported by the Washington Post:
A State Department spokesman late Tuesday described the top-secret designation as a recommendation and said they had not been marked classified at the time, but said staffers “circulated these e-mails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton.”
As such HRC may not have had expectation she would have truly received secret info via e-mail. As SOS I'm sure she received sensitive info. regularly. Reports coming out are that this secret info was satellite photos. Just my opinion, but maybe we should wait before we get the pitchforks out.
It's a moot point. If the documents were deemed TOP SECRET either before or after, it means that anyone with a half a brain could tell that there were classified-type material. It is her responsibility (and the responsibility of any USG employee with access to sensitive information to protect it).
TOP SECRET is the most sensitive information in the USG.
Beyond all that, what was her purpose to have her own server/e-mail system to conduct USG business on? Clearly, to prevent prying eyes from other USG officials and Freedom of Information requests.
She had (and still may have) a great than 50/50 shot to win the election. The way the Presidential elections have gone in recent years is that they come down to a handful of states (and counties) that the Democrats have been successfully been able to carry the last couple of elections.
Why risk all of that on stupid stuff like this and the stuff going on in the Clinton Foundation (which even the Obama Administration recommended that she cool it)?
It's just stupid. This is a completely self-inflicted wound. Will she get past it? History says yes. But why take the risk in the first place?
The only thing I can say, when it comes to truly secret info. do we really want it going via e-amail regardless of gov.org or private. It appears as I mentioned before per Dana Periono apparently there are provisions.
The only thing I'm suggesting is that we get all the facts before we jump to the gun.
Hilliary's problem here is even if she is completely innocent, she looks guilty as sin. But she isn't innocent because simply by having a private server and using her private e-mail, she violated USG policy. The question now is one of criminality - and that comes into play if she compromised national security.