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 )
But we do have the Hudson river!
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Actually I dont know that either of these are lies. In January 2009 she became SOS and set up the server. She didnt want to carry two phones. Ipad launched in April 2010 and she got one in June 2010. And so she started carrying the second device then. So is it a lie to say she set up the server to carry one device if the fact disproving it is a development 1+ year later? No.
Almost all or all of the classified data she possessed was not marked classified until she turned it over. As I understand it (and Im not 100% upto date) there is an allegation that some of the stuff she possessed was classified when she received it but not marked as such (maybe?). She did say none of it was classified, which was a lie/error depending on how you want to classify it. But I think her corrected statement that none of it was marked classified when she got it was correct. Not sure what you are referring to w/ subpoena.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Totally understand and respect where you're coming from. That's a larger issue I won't challenge (nor would I have the knowledge or desire to do so).
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Meh. You also called her a traitor for influence peddling despite no evidence of influence peddling whatsoever.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
The onus is on the person with the clearance.
Quote:
My passion about this subject is actually more related to my own personal experience as a USG employee with a secret clearance.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Actually that I don't get at all. Even if HRC was truthful, David Kendall should have been immediately put in jail. He was holding material that the State definitely marked classified and we know this because they were releasing redacted material contemporaneous with Kendall possessing copies of it. AFAIK he had zero security clearance.
Kendall has TS/SCI clearance. Boom.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12446796 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
My passion about this subject is actually more related to my own personal experience as a USG employee with a secret clearance.
I don't like Hilliary but I'm more worked up about this about the double-standard. It's unbelievable to me that the Office of Security at State would allow this situation, and worse, give her attorney to keep the thumb drives in. They should all be out of a job.
Actually that I don't get at all. Even if HRC was truthful, David Kendall should have been immediately put in jail. He was holding material that the State definitely marked classified and we know this because they were releasing redacted material contemporaneous with Kendall possessing copies of it. AFAIK he had zero security clearance.
Kendall has TS/SCI clearance. Boom. Link - ( New Window )
Yes, I really do. Tell me the opposite story. The foreign minister of Terrorismstan calls up who in this fantasy? Bill (who expressly agreed not to solicit funds)? Or Hillary? Or Hillary calls up Terrorismstan and says "I HRC will approve the arms shipment if you give my husband's charity some money". It's fantasy man. Too many moving parts for "strings attached" deals. Again, you're fabricating from no where some grand conspiracy of corruption and treason by a sitting SOS and former president where the payoff is ... money for HIV/AIDS patients, disaster relief, poor people in Africa etc. It's just bizarre man.
Moreover, I think it's galling that you'd call someone a traitor to her country based on no evidence whatsoever. Just your suspicion.
12/2008 MOU - ( New Window )
State Department has an Office of General Counsel (as do all USG agencies). Hillary felt the need to give her lawyer this info. It's up to the investigators to determine if that was appropriate. Clearly State thought it was OK.
The info that the government put in a government safe in his office? Are you just fishing for a problem at this point?
Quote:
Okay then maybe he shouldn't be in jail? Was he entitled to hold the info?
The info that the government put in a government safe in his office? Are you just fishing for a problem at this point?
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
...
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
In a presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would be likely to showcase her foreign-policy expertise, yet the foundation’s ongoing reliance on foreign governments’ support opens a potential line of attack for Republicans eager to question her independence as secretary of state and as a possible president.
At the VERY LEAST, it raises another example of a serious lack of judgement on her part.
Assuming they are innocent - like you do - why do they take these risks?
Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept. - ( New Window )
And even some Democrats with ties to Clinton have become quietly uncomfortable with the foundation stories.
Looking to signal they would stop collecting foreign donations if Clinton runs for president, the foundation said in another unsigned foundation statement last week said that, "should Secretary Clinton decide to run for office, we will continue to ensure the foundation's policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state."
CNN: Clinton Foundation: 2010 donation broke Obama administration agreement - ( New Window )
There are ethics rules (see my links above). You can get waivers.
My guess is that her continuing to receive donations after becoming Secretary even shocked the Administration, and as the two article allude to, she had to agree to knock it off.
Assume Deej is right and I'm just a conservative nut looking for hidden ghosts and conspiracies that don't exist. Say I'm 100 percent wrong about the influence pedaling.
But the Foundation's ties to foreign countries/companies COMBINED with her decision to use a non-USG server (not just e-mail but here own server) opens her up to the obvious charges that she is hiding dirty business.
Optically, it looks terrible. If she is innocent, why do these things? She was a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination and likely the next president (still might). But why take these risks?
Quote:
Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
I dont agree. I dont even think the Washington Post has a basis to make that statement. Just look at the Bush family for god's sake. I think there are a lot more questions that should be raised about how GWB was running Arbusto/Spectrum 7/Harken in the 1980s when his dad was VP and about to run for President, and especially when the Saudis owned a big piece of it. And how Harken got offshore drilling contracts from Baharain in 1990 despite no international experience and no offshore experience. GHWB was a "member" (I think that means partner) in the Carlyle Group in his 70s and traveled to the Middle East and Asia on behalf of the CG while GWB was running for president. After 9/11 the WSJ had to report this gem: "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm" and that Poppy got the bin laden family to invest millions with the CG.
Does this make the Bush family dirty or influence peddlers? I cant say that because I dont go making baseless accusations against people. But it certainly looks a lot worse than the CHARITABLE EFFORTS that are garnering the Clintons the evidence-free recriminations seen here. If you're going to pick on the Clintons, why do it with (1) no evidence and (2) with regards to their charity which anyone with half a brain can see is doing good work. But I guess if you think the Clintons are scum, then even their charitable efforts are scum.
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.
Reluctant to chime in until all is known. But there seems to be somethings that appear to be apparent as I understand it. State department has 2 separate systems by which info. is electronically archived and communicated.
First, unclassified server (state personnel refer to it as "low side" communication) which may contain sensitive (SBU) info. but not classified. This is the stuff that can be communicated via email. It doesn't appear that a .gov is required. Also permitted on home computer but once done must be removed (scrubbed not just deleted?) Just because something is not classified doesn't mean it's should be subject to public distribution hense rules on SBU. For the most part, this is why 300 of the latest batch of emails were redacted and NOW classified as confidential.
The second is the secured server which contains classified info. and can only be distributed through a secured network (state refers to it as "high side" communication); it can't be directly emailed. So if the info. is correctly coded when received and put on the right server it should never be in anyone's email account .gov or otherwise unless someone has purposely mis-handled.
As to the Top Secret info., I believe there has been 2 emails reference. Would appear that State and Intel. are not in agreement; state contending info. not received as secret nor should it be. As such placed on unclassified server and eventually ended up being emailed to HRC. Since not all emails had been reviewed and because of the dispute, the FBI was asked to check out HRC computer to insure no further leakage.
This appears to be where we are now (at least what has been publicly made available). Perhaps I've overlooked something, if so would be interested to know. Just my opinion but maybe should wait to see how this plays out before we take out the pitchforks. Sorry this got long.
Link - ( New Window )
Sounds like VP candidate material.
Sounds like VP candidate material.
For once Trump is right.
Donald Trump openly boasts that he donates to politicians so he can exact favors from them after they reach office.
He did so for Jeb Bush in 1998, holding a high-dollar fundraiser for the gubernatorial candidate in Trump Tower and shelling out $50,000 to the Florida Republican Party. But when Bush took office in 1999, Trump didn't get the political help he needed to make his casino dreams a reality in the Sunshine State.
Instead, Bush maintained his hardline stance against gambling in the state, delivering a death blow to Trump's hopes of building out a multi-million dollar casino endeavor with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and prompting him to abandon those plans.
Link - ( New Window )
the United States? Is Barack Obama a Christian in his opinion. He will be asked and how he answers IMO will determine his ceiling
So will the religious which is total hypocrisy too.
My facebook page has plenty of loony right winged people focused on mostly batshit crazy stuff.
Unfortunately we are left with a binary decision here
Link - ( New Window )
Agree on the self inflicted part. However, I dont get people with their panties in a bunch over HRC lying about never sending/receiving classified info because things were subsequently marked classified. Do people have no conception of time? If I say today that the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, and then they (god forbid) win a Super Bowl next season, does that render my statement a lie? Of course not. Similarly, HRC's statement that she didnt send/receive classified material was not dishonest when made IF docs are later deemed classified.
Look, the private email server was allowed. It was stupid, and Im glad they changed the rule. But I think beyond that, the real problem here is the misclassification of documents. If docs are top secret but are only deemed top secret years later, what's the point?
Quote:
even in a relatively sympathetic take, it goes through some of these issues and explains how the facts contradict many of her assertions, specifically her sending material that was subsequently classified (it wasn't marked classified, of course, because she was the originator of the information, but it concerned materials so sensitive that some of them were blacked out in their entirety). And again, the operative feature of this entire story is that the wound is self-inflicted. Link - ( New Window )
Agree on the self inflicted part. However, I dont get people with their panties in a bunch over HRC lying about never sending/receiving classified info because things were subsequently marked classified. Do people have no conception of time? If I say today that the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, and then they (god forbid) win a Super Bowl next season, does that render my statement a lie? Of course not. Similarly, HRC's statement that she didnt send/receive classified material was not dishonest when made IF docs are later deemed classified.
Look, the private email server was allowed. It was stupid, and Im glad they changed the rule. But I think beyond that, the real problem here is the misclassification of documents. If docs are top secret but are only deemed top secret years later, what's the point?
I think the point is that as she both wrote and sent the e-mails before anyone at State could vet them and any determination could be made as to whether they were classified or not. The fact is that at least some of these documents SHOULD have been deemed classified when they sent but the internal security system was systematically bypassed. Yes, you can say overclassification goes on, but that doesn't justify bypassing the system when you are SOS and clearly dealing with information as part of your job that's legitimately classified. That's the problem with your Eagles (ugh) analogy. What if they really WON the SB way back when?
I'll let the FBI and the IGs sort out the legalities, but if nothing else it reflects negligence and incompetence with regards to national security.
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
If someone removed the markings I'd think that's clear criminality. Only question is the identity of the criminal(s).
Quote:
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
If someone removed the markings I'd think that's clear criminality. Only question is the identity of the criminal(s).
I agree. And if Hillary had someone do that, throw the book at her. That's ridiculous.
I know someone mentioned removing markings a week or two ago. Anyone have a reputable source on this?
Quote:
In comment 12448757 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
The second point and the more troubling one is the notion that someone removed the classified markings. That's not something that happens by accident, certainly not multiple times. This almost certainly happened at someone's direction. Was it Hillary? Was it an underling acting on her behalf? She is smart enough that this particular charge probably won't be lain on her doorstep, but it probably gets close enough to seriously dent her reputation for honesty.
If someone removed the markings I'd think that's clear criminality. Only question is the identity of the criminal(s).
I agree. And if Hillary had someone do that, throw the book at her. That's ridiculous.
I know someone mentioned removing markings a week or two ago. Anyone have a reputable source on this?
For previously classified information there is no innocent explanation for them ending up on a server without markings. If there was no previously classified information so be it, but if there was signals intelligence and such it almost certainly classified at the time of dissemination.
For previously classified information there is no innocent explanation for them ending up on a server without markings. If there was no previously classified information so be it, but if there was signals intelligence and such it almost certainly classified at the time of dissemination.
Depends on what the SI was. If it was a formal SI report or a satellite image then sure, everyone seeing it should have known. If it was an assessment based on SI or sat images (e.g. "the boat put to sea"), it should still be marked Top Secret //SI/TK. But if it wasnt marked as such, seeing those 5 words doesnt immediately suggest the source. We could know that the boat put to see based on satellite images, intercepting a call, or just looking at a website that tracks commercial vessel movement.
Apparently non-news people at Fox News like Napolitano and Doocy misunderstood an IG report as meaning that because docs should have been marked SI/TK, it means that there was satellite images in her email. But the AP reported:
That AP piece goes on to suggest that the issue on one of the emails was parallel reporting -- a fact was communicated; it was known independently from highly classified sources but also not HC sources; on recent review, someone decided to mark the email classified.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
For previously classified information there is no innocent explanation for them ending up on a server without markings. If there was no previously classified information so be it, but if there was signals intelligence and such it almost certainly classified at the time of dissemination.
Depends on what the SI was. If it was a formal SI report or a satellite image then sure, everyone seeing it should have known. If it was an assessment based on SI or sat images (e.g. "the boat put to sea"), it should still be marked Top Secret //SI/TK. But if it wasnt marked as such, seeing those 5 words doesnt immediately suggest the source. We could know that the boat put to see based on satellite images, intercepting a call, or just looking at a website that tracks commercial vessel movement.
Apparently non-news people at Fox News like Napolitano and Doocy misunderstood an IG report as meaning that because docs should have been marked SI/TK, it means that there was satellite images in her email. But the AP reported:
Quote:
The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
That AP piece goes on to suggest that the issue on one of the emails was parallel reporting -- a fact was communicated; it was known independently from highly classified sources but also not HC sources; on recent review, someone decided to mark the email classified. Link - ( New Window )
Today's WaPo article indicates that Clinton herself wrote and transmitted material that was later classified. The PBS link is from mid-August so things appear to have changed. What's the date on the AP story?
I noticed you side with Hillary, I was wondering if I could ask you a question?
We all know the Republican field is filled with a lot of putzes...
but is it discouraging that the Dems cant offer anyone credible to run against her. I make no bones that I am not a Hillary fan. And with her skeletons, you'd figure someone would be running that could take herdown, but the best they have is Bernie. Is this a bad sign to come for Dems?
It's not good for the party or country that no one is running against her though. I think choice is good, and I dont consider Bernie Sanders a credible choice. If he is the nominee, there are Republican candidates I'd look at voting for. I wish some of the Dem governors were running, but they decided not to so far.
Hillary isnt entitled to my vote in the primary. I voted for her over Obama (and a lot of my concerns are the ones Republicans raised -- experience, too hopey-changey, aloof). I dont mind voting for her again. If we had a candidate I liked better, I'd vote for that person.