These polls were conducted by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register. The Republican poll shows Trump leading at 23% followed by a surprising showing by Carson at 18%. All the rest have single digits.
In the Democratic poll, Hillary still leads with 37% with Sanders getting close with 30% and the unannounced Biden at 14%.
Link - (
New Window )
18 U.S.C. § 208: Acts affecting a personal financial interest - ( New Window )
18 U.S.C. 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy - ( New Window )
United States Code, 2008 Edition
Title 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
Sec. 3101 - Records management by agency heads; general duties
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov
§3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency's activities.
(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1297.)
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material - ( New Window )
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - ( New Window )
If you want to accuse her of breaking protocol by using the personal email you would be correct. You would also be correct in saying it's a problem. I am in favor of the justice department looking into it. But to insinuate the criminal disposal of classified documents without any proof makes it seem like your agenda is not to expose criminal wrongdoing, but to smear her campaign.
By "you," I mean anyone taking your position.
I,
(please type or print)
make the following statement in connection with my
separation from employment in the Department of State of the United States Information Agency. As used herein, the term "employment" includes all periods of assignment or detail, as well as any periods of temporary, part-time or intermittent employment therein, and the term "separation" includes suspension for any period in excess of 30 days, retirement from active duty, transfer to another agency, resignation, furlough to enter military service, etc.
1. I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession, and I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof, including any diaries, memorandums of conversation, or other documents of a personal nature that contain classified or administratively controlled information.
2. I have surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department or USIA.
3. I shall not publish, nor reveal to any person, any classified or administratively controlled information of which I have knowledge, or any other information transmitted to me in confidence in the course of my official duties, except as may be authorized by officials of the employing Department or Agency empowered to grant permission for such disclosure.
4. I have been advised by the interviewing officer whose name appears below and understand the criminal penalties relating to U.S. Government records and information and the use thereof:
U.S. State Department Separation Statement - ( New Window )
I see literally no problem with the charity. It think it's pretty appalling that the right wing, which is doing everything it can to make politics the province of the highest bidder, is going after her for the most specious charges of general "influence peddling" relating to the charity. When the Clinton charity gets a donation, it's corruption. When the chair of the senate banking committee gets donations for his re-election/PAC from all the banks, it's just good government I guess.
Unless it wasnt classified when she had it.
I do agree with Dune that this is a problem of her own making. The private email route was stupid.
She had to - HAD to know that her method of using e-mail was going to raise a stink.
And she also had to have known whether or not she was doing something that could hang her.
And it has already been made public by the Inspectors General that she had Top Secret information on the system.
The fact that you won't accept this is mind-boggling.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything that was classified was retroactively classified. Again, I'm all for the justice department investigating this. She deserves having her emails and online activity to be examined with a find-tooth comb. That is her fault.
But as of now, there is not even a modicum of proof of illegal activity (if my reference to retroactive declassification is accurate). You said I'm right if I believe her. I think the justice department's investigation will be crucial to any reasonable opinion. But as of now... sure. I think it's pretty forthcoming that's turned over 30K emails or whatever the number is.
She clearly made a series of poor decisions by poo pooing the interest in this topic, but that's a sign of a woman trying to move forward in her campaign, not the sign of a woman who committed an illegal act. Now that it's pretty evident this issue has blown up, she's been immeasurably more transparent as she sees it's in her best interests.
But what defines her best interests now is different than what defined them when this story first broke. The issue is obviously much more of a talking point today than it ever was before. So with this shift, she's shifted her strategy.
I think she's guilty of making a poor campaign decision. I don't think she's deleting classified information.
If you want to accuse her of breaking protocol by using the personal email you would be correct. You would also be correct in saying it's a problem. I am in favor of the justice department looking into it. But to insinuate the criminal disposal of classified documents without any proof makes it seem like your agenda is not to expose criminal wrongdoing, but to smear her campaign.
By "you," I mean anyone taking your position.
This has already been proven to be a lie. There were emails to/from Blumenthal that she deleted even though they were related to (IIRC) Libya and other aspects of her job as SoS.
Quote:
that doesn't change the fact that she's violated federal statutes by having classified information on a private system. That's illegal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but everything that was classified was retroactively classified. Again, I'm all for the justice department investigating this. She deserves having her emails and online activity to be examined with a find-tooth comb. That is her fault.
But as of now, there is not even a modicum of proof of illegal activity (if my reference to retroactive declassification is accurate). You said I'm right if I believe her. I think the justice department's investigation will be crucial to any reasonable opinion. But as of now... sure. I think it's pretty forthcoming that's turned over 30K emails or whatever the number is.
She clearly made a series of poor decisions by poo pooing the interest in this topic, but that's a sign of a woman trying to move forward in her campaign, not the sign of a woman who committed an illegal act. Now that it's pretty evident this issue has blown up, she's been immeasurably more transparent as she sees it's in her best interests.
You are wrong.
An earlier investigation by different IG found several pieces of material that was classified at the time it was generated and before it ended upon her server. Specifically said that the material was *not* retroactively classified. But, there is much more material that apparently was classified retroactively.
Besides that, the top secret documents that the Inspectors General had showed the markings at the top taken off but not the classified sub-markers. Whomever took those headers off is also in trouble (State or Hillary's staff).
Beyond all that, USG employees are responsible for sensitive information even if it is not officially classified. If Hillary sends NSA an e-mail on Russian sanctions, that's classified.
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
It demonstrates horrible judgment similar to how making Palin his VP showed idiotic judgment on McCain's part.
I think she decided to turn everything over when people decided to care about the issue. She's a politician. Perhaps forthcoming is the wrong word. But I don't think she was hiding anything.
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
It'll easily play with most of the public. Most know little to nothing about the handling of classified docs (whether properly marked or not) and half of those who claim to know are talking out of their ass.
Quote:
She didn't turn anything over until years after she was supposed to and then after first being directed to and also after sifting through it and deciding on her own what to turn over and what not to turn over.
I think she decided to turn everything over when people decided to care about the issue. She's a politician. Perhaps forthcoming is the wrong word. But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Quote:
She didn't turn anything over until years after she was supposed to and then after first being directed to and also after sifting through it and deciding on her own what to turn over and what not to turn over.
I think she decided to turn everything over when people decided to care about the issue. She's a politician. Perhaps forthcoming is the wrong word. But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Not "hiding" anything would be turning over the 30,000 emails but leaving the other 30,000 as is. Deleting the emails her team decided were not government matters gives a strong appearance of hiding something. Especially if she then opted to scrub the server afterwords (i.e. not just hitting the "delete" button in your email browser).
And you'd accept that if she were a Republican?
Quote:
narrative Hillary is going to spin with the public is that the documents were not marked classified. She has already parsed her words on this...she is saying "I did not send or receive documents MARKED classified."
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
That's the third iteration of her narrative and each comes after evidence proves the earlier iteration to be a falsehood. Her first and most public statement was a categorical I never received or possessed classified material.
I disagree with you totally, Bill. If the material wasn't marked classified, then it wasn't classified. She didn't have a crystal ball. She's only specifying that the emails weren't marked classified because it was irresponsibly reported that "Hilary deleted classified material." Of course she's going to explain why that's not true and use the word "marked" at that point.
Quote:
She says that she didn't.
And you'd accept that if she were a Republican?
Nope. I'm a Democrat and I'm not accepting it. I went on to say that I support the investigation. She brought that on herself.
What I took issue with is the assertion that she committed criminal activity without proof.
Based on what, the fact she said so?
Quote:
But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Based on what, the fact she said so?
The burden of proof is not on me, njm. That's not how it works.
These are Obama Administration officials.
And even if you don't accept that, I don't think you really understand what Top Secret means. It means the information is so sensitive that it can cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the United States.
No one with a brain could look at a top secret document and not know it wasn't classified.
Quote:
In comment 12446674 Mike in Long Beach said:
Quote:
But I don't think she was hiding anything.
Based on what, the fact she said so?
The burden of proof is not on me, njm. That's not how it works.
It is if you're concluding she's innocent before the FBI and IGs weigh in.
Quote:
In comment 12446672 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
narrative Hillary is going to spin with the public is that the documents were not marked classified. She has already parsed her words on this...she is saying "I did not send or receive documents MARKED classified."
That may matter to the public, but it won't to the investigators (if they are allowed to do their job).
That's the third iteration of her narrative and each comes after evidence proves the earlier iteration to be a falsehood. Her first and most public statement was a categorical I never received or possessed classified material.
I disagree with you totally, Bill. If the material wasn't marked classified, then it wasn't classified. She didn't have a crystal ball. She's only specifying that the emails weren't marked classified because it was irresponsibly reported that "Hilary deleted classified material." Of course she's going to explain why that's not true and use the word "marked" at that point.
Now if someone illegally stripped the markings before she received it, maybe you can give her a pass on that. Then someone else needs to go to jail but not her.
Of course in that case, you can't escape the fact that people could send her top secret material and she didn't have the wherewithal to recognize it. You don't need a crystal ball but you do need competence. So, how good would her capability as SoS be then?
These are Obama Administration officials.
And even if you don't accept that, I don't think you really understand what Top Secret means. It means the information is so sensitive that it can cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the United States.
No one with a brain could look at a top secret document and not know it wasn't classified.
I won't dispute what you're saying here because I'm not knowledgable of that topic. I've actually made a concerted effort in my responses to you to only tough on the details I know, and acknowledge the ones that I don't.
But what I will say is, your assertion that she deleted documents clearly marked top secret is not in line with the lack of criminal charges as of yet. That's why I went on to say I'll be very interested to see what happens (and how folks will react) once the investigation is complete.
She SHOULD be in trouble regardless simply based on what her staff has already handed over to State. Not only the top secret stuff but they had to redact 150 e-mails yesterday because they had classified info on them.
But I wasn't even focused on the criminality of it all as opposed to the lack of honesty and ethics. She said what she said and over and over again the facts contradict her.
She SHOULD be in trouble regardless simply based on what her staff has already handed over to State. Not only the top secret stuff but they had to redact 150 e-mails yesterday because they had classified info on them.
Honest question to you Eric. If you had emails about your wife's birthday party and your yoga classes that you considered private, would you stop at deleting your emails and emptying your trash or would you have the server professionally scrubbed? I would only do the former because it's all I can do being not very well versed in technical stuff.
Quote:
Same response to you. If classification is determined by content and not labels, then surely charges are going to be filed at some point in the near future.
We shall see. Charges in this are not necessarily going to be separated from politics.
But I wasn't even focused on the criminality of it all as opposed to the lack of honesty and ethics. She said what she said and over and over again the facts contradict her.
Fair enough, Bill (my previous post was directed at Eric, FYI).
Ethics I will sort of give you. It was unethical to open these doors in the first place by using the personal account... though I would argue ethics are a strong word here. Irresponsible behavior, sure. And it would be a very fair callout from the Republican opposition.
"Dishonesty" is a word I just don't agree with. If you were committing a criminal act that would put a future Presidential campaign in grave jeopardy, would you use the same email account to take part in this illegal activity as you do to schedule your Pilates class? We can argue her level of intelligence till we are blue in the face, but I just can't imagine there was some disingenuous agenda here. I think she was lazy and perhaps irresponsible, but that's where it ends.
I didn't even want to use my personal email to talk about (legal) strippers for my buddy's bachelor party :). She's going to use hers for hidden criminal acts? If so, she is one of the worst criminals of all time... something that wouldn't really be in line with the notion that she orchestrated some massive cover up in Benghazi.
I just don't see this as any more than a minor (but fair) talking point being blown up into far worse and very baseless accusations.
Now that all said, she isn't the only one who should be in trouble. A whole bunch of USG employees should be fired and arrested.
Can't say I disagree with you. She played politics. Once she saw this was problematic for her, her comments and her strategy became very different.
But with respect to your opinion, one that I ultimately do agree with, everyone running for President is guilty of this in some capacity. She's just the biggest Democratic name (and most likely winner at this point), so the microscope is particularly focused on her.
Carson is eventually going to get destroyed if he continues to move up in the polls. His stances on abortion directly contradict not only his education, but comments he's made numerous times in the past. It's just the dirty nature of our political system.