The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Fenring on January 20, 2016, 10:05:36 AM

Title: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2016, 10:05:36 AM
Apparently this investigation is far from over:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-said-to-include-material-exceeding-top-secret.html?_r=0

In case her campaign suddenly keels over due to a criminal charge, at least Bernie has finally picked up enough steam that I'm pretty confident he can carry on as the Democrat candidate. My original fear of Hillary getting knocked out and handing away the Presidency to Bush is, thankfully, no longer a real concern. Although some might prefer to shift that concern to handing to Presidency to Trump or Cruz (still not as bad as Bush imo).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 20, 2016, 11:48:19 AM
Did you read the whole article?
Quote
The letter to Congress, from I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the nation’s intelligence agencies, provides no specifics about the classified material. It is not clear from the letter whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails, nor how many contained the classified information.
...
The letter was sent to the Republican chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees. It was not made public.

“This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received,” Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said.

“It appears that this may still revolve around a State Department employee forwarding a published news article about the drone program,” he said. “If so, it would further reinforce how absurd it is to suggest that Secretary Clinton did anything wrong.”
Note that nothing in the article (or the letter that the NYT quotes but that "was not made public") says she did anything wrong.  More fodder for the scandal machine, it appears.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2016, 12:20:16 PM
This story was picked up by many MSM sources, including the NYT, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and of course FOX. As always with a story like this, we'll have to wait and see whether or not it amounts to anything. Maybe Brian Fallon's argument is valid, maybe not, but I find it amusing that a spokesperson for Hillary's campaign can be considered a good source on whether or not Hillary did anything wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 20, 2016, 01:15:44 PM
Note that I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  I am saying, however, that every sensational bit of news has so far been blown far out of proportion.  As the Times says, it isn't known whether the emails were classified when they showed up on her server or if they were whether she knew that, or who sent them.  But, let's talk about it anyway and think about how it could derail her candidacy.  If it turns out to be as much nothing as all the other delicious newsy things that coulda, woulda, shoulda or definitely were gonna destroy her, nobody will say they overstated it or were wrong.  Has anyone who accused Obama of the "birther" disqualification ever apologized for making the claim?  Why aren't those same people screaming about Cruz?  Seems that they are never right, but never wrong.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 20, 2016, 01:22:13 PM
Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong, all that remains is to determine whether that wrongdoing was a merely technical infraction or whether it is more serious than that. The only accusation being levied at the moment is the one where you think I'm sensationalizing this. My original thread post was about whether Hillary is too big a risk for the DNC to put all their eggs in her basket. Fortunately for them Bernie is a viable alternative who's very popular, and so the problem from my perspective is significantly lessened compared to before; that problem being, the Democrats risked handing away the Presidency to the GOP.

Make no mistake, though: if it ends up being Hillary vs Trump he will not hesitate even slightly to bring up every dark thing or even alleged dark thing in her past, and this will be one of them. It won't matter if he's right. All that will matter is if people believe it and vote for him. By contrast there's not much negative one can legitimately say about Bernie other than to confront his policies themselves. I'm sure Trump could make hay out of that as well but at least it would remain an ideological attack rather than a personal one.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 20, 2016, 01:56:14 PM
Quote
Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong
What do you mean by "wrong"?  And why do you assume she "did" it?  Legally, she was not barred from having the emails on a private server, and it's not proven that she knowingly sent or received classified materials.

I hope that it doesn't turn out to be Trump vs Clinton, but OTOH, I hope the Republicans decide to forfeit the election due to an inability to field a team.  But I will say that it doesn't have to be hopeless for them. I would be ok if the convention settles on Alan Simpson. I would enjoy watching him debate Hillary, and if he somehow beat her in the election, watching his fireside chats would be worth the price of admission.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 20, 2016, 05:42:21 PM
"Has anyone who accused Obama of the "birther" disqualification ever apologized for making the claim?  Why aren't those same people screaming about Cruz? "

Because Cruz' middle name isn't the same name as some infamous psychopath that we warred with.  If his name was Pancho Villa Cruz, you can bet that there would be bitter noises.

BTW, what is the hypocrisy difference between someone who made a birther issue with Obama but not with Cruz, versus someone that raises the birthed issue with Cruz while crying that it was done with Obama?

:)

Technical disqualifications are going to be looked at in an adversarial manner.  That's just how these things work.  If Cruz was as popular as Obama, there would be democrats looking for birthed arguments.  That's just how it goes.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on January 20, 2016, 06:36:33 PM
Quote
If Cruz was as popular as Obama, there would be democrats looking for birthed arguments.

There might be some grumbling on the fringes, but all-in-all, no, democrats wouldn't be using a birther argument.  Not to the extent that Republicans have, where you have Congressmen indicating that "there might be something to it."  ::)

Remember that John McCain was born in a U.S. Territory, but was never questioned about his right to be President.

Perhaps you could name an argument that lasted nearly as long as the birther argument, which had so many high-ranking Democrats talking about it, which had Democrats demanding documentation from the President and then declaring it a forgery after it was released?  I can't think of one.  I think you'll be hard pressed to come up with one, too.

No, this argument is pretty much unprecedented in its scope, its continuation in spite of evidence, and its fervor.  While Democrats may look for such an argument, I doubt they'd settle on such a flimsy one.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Greg Davidson on January 20, 2016, 10:02:18 PM
Quote
Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong...
all that remains is to figure out what that thing is and then convict her.

I really am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, I really have not made my mind up about which Democrat to support, but the track record on Hillary accusations remains abysmal.  How many Benghazi accusations turned to vapor when even just in the limited circumstances of a Congressional Hearing?  It was years worth.

We've had a lot of noise made about emails (which, by the way, were a product of the Benghazi investigation just as Monica Lewinsky was somehow related to the Whitewater land deals that occurred in the 1970's), but there is still no evidence of any violation of any law by Hillary Clinton.  And so far I have yet to hear anything that could not be a case of someone sending Hillary an email after having inadvertantly combined pieces of unclassified information in a way that made the resulting product classified.  If she is the recipient, there is zero legal issue for her. And if it is that case of something being classified by a combination of pieces of unclassified information, there would be no clear cut way to tell that the email was classified (ie; no "Top Secret!" stamp, just two or more pieces of information burried in a document or attachment that could be hundreds of pages long.

I am not sure that Clinton did not do wrong, but the ~25 year track track record indicates a high likelihood that this scandal is manufactured
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 20, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
Did you watch the debates, Greg?  I certainly give Hillary that she has the presidential dignity and credentials.  But I am altogether not comfortable with her slick dishonest ... The way she repeatedly falsely accused Sanders of being anti Obama, anti Obama care when Sanders actually wrote big chunks of the ACA.  It seemed sociopathic.  Picking this argument with Sanders, as if Obama was God and Sanders was some sort of blasphemer.

BTW, I need to correct my statements to you of 3 weeks ago re my interfacing with the ACA.  I was just talking with the wrong people. Misdirection from the local family services folks.  The ACA rep today was very helpful and it looks like I'm going to get health care!  So surprise, it did work for me. Go Obama.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Greg Davidson on January 20, 2016, 11:44:11 PM
Yes, I believe that Hillary was intending to mislead in her characterization of Sanders. But if we were to characterize that as some form of disqualifying dishonesty, then I believe that virtually every other candidate running for President this year would be disqualified.  And if you call that kind of behavior sociopathic, you will run out of words to describe dishonesty that is far more egregious by many of the candidates.

One of the things I like about Sanders is his hesitancy (so far) to play the usual political games.  But I am not sure how well that would last in a longer campaign.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 12:22:18 AM
The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong. It's not even contestable, since in order to even comply with the FOIA she had to delete whatever she wished first before complying so as not to end up revealing private emails not related to her job. This is both pathetically stupid, as well as irresponsible. Deleting all those emails before complying (which she was permitted to do, after a fashion) was so suspicious that even if she truly did nothing wrong it's her own fault that some will forevermore be concerned about what she deleted.

But as I've said this is the only thing we know for sure she did wrong. It remains to be seen whether anything else will ensue. A low-level bureaucrat would no doubt be disciplined for having done a similar thing, but I don't particularly care to see anything happen to her just on this account. The rest will be revealed by the ongoing FBI investigation.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 01:34:19 AM
Quote
The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong.
You still haven't defined "wrong".  It was legal, but foolish.  Is that the "wrong" thing?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 02:40:53 AM
Quote
The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong.
You still haven't defined "wrong".  It was legal, but foolish.  Is that the "wrong" thing?

It's not legal if you are unable to comply with a FOIA request. Technically she was able but given what compliance would have meant she was effectively unable since she had to delete whatever she wanted first in order to give them what was left. If you don't see anything wrong with that then I guess transparency and trustworthiness  aren't very high on your list of priorities for would-be leaders.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 06:25:21 AM
OK, now I understand what you mean.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 07:36:30 AM
Quote
The thing Hillary clearly did wrong was to keep a private email server and to have that as her sole email domain for both personal and government business. That is what she "clearly" did wrong.
You still haven't defined "wrong".  It was legal, but foolish.  Is that the "wrong" thing?

Now THAT is more like splitting hairs over the definition of "is" that anything I have seen on Ornery.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 07:51:03 AM
Greg, I agree that her misrepresentation was small as far as politics goes.  I was troubled by her body language as she played obtuse to dupe the audience into thinking that Sanders opposed a bill that he had in fact crafted since inception.  Her body language suggests smug satisfaction. She takes pleasure in the lie.  It's a look I have seen on some fellow law students and attorneys, and I reflexively think of it as sociopathy.

You have a point, so I will be more precise.  She seems to have been coached by an attorney who was disbarred for perjury, and the smug look on her face could be interpreted as an expectation that he would be proud of her at that moment for doubling down shamelessly on a false accusation.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 10:33:57 AM
Note that I'm not saying she did nothing wrong.  I am saying, however, that every sensational bit of news has so far been blown far out of proportion.  As the Times says, it isn't known whether the emails were classified when they showed up on her server or if they were whether she knew that, or who sent them.
Um what?  It is known that the emails were classified when they showed up on her server, that they were classified before they got to her server and that some where classified when they left her server.  It is known that the contents of her server were held in at least 3 unsecure locations in violation of federal law.  What news are you actually reading?
Quote
But, let's talk about it anyway and think about how it could derail her candidacy.  If it turns out to be as much nothing as all the other delicious newsy things that coulda, woulda, shoulda or definitely were gonna destroy her, nobody will say they overstated it or were wrong.  Has anyone who accused Obama of the "birther" disqualification ever apologized for making the claim?  Why aren't those same people screaming about Cruz?  Seems that they are never right, but never wrong.
People aren't "screaming" at Cruz because there isn't any mystery or secrecy.  Same with John McCain.  The debate with Cruz is a matter of law, for which there is no clear answer.  The debate with President Obama wasn't a question of law, either he was absolutely eligible to be President or was not, it was a question of fact - where he was borne - and his deliberate choice to incite the debate by being secretive.

To put it simply, what do you think Cruz is hiding or refusing to share to clarify this question?  What piece of evidence is there that could in any way alter the legal circumstances beyond what he's already admitted - ie Canadian birth?  It drives me nuts when people find one matching factor that isn't relevant to the substance and then declare two dissimilar situations the same.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 10:42:38 AM
Quote
Since it seems to be a given that Hillary did something wrong...
all that remains is to figure out what that thing is and then convict her.
It's not a mystery what she did.  I'm surprised we haven't seen an indictment yet.  Not serving one, given the federal government's direct history in this area, would be a direct indication that some people are above the laws that apply to others.
Quote
I really am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, I really have not made my mind up about which Democrat to support, but the track record on Hillary accusations remains abysmal.  How many Benghazi accusations turned to vapor when even just in the limited circumstances of a Congressional Hearing?  It was years worth.
I don't know, how many "turned to vapor"?  I see from the review of the Benghazi thread I did, that in fact the core claim - ie that the administration knew it was terrorists and not a video - has not only not turned to vapor, but been conclusively proven from Secretary Clinton's own emails.  I see that the claim that there were no forces available that could have reached the site has also been disproven.  What I really see though is that Democrats will never hold one of their own accountable when it risks hurting the party.
Quote
And so far I have yet to hear anything that could not be a case of someone sending Hillary an email after having inadvertantly combined pieces of unclassified information in a way that made the resulting product classified.  If she is the recipient, there is zero legal issue for her.
Based on what?  Having created the work around system - for her own personal benefit, or have you forgotten that not one of you has yet answered the challenge to put forward a legitimate rationale for the private server - any receipt of classified information in violation of the law is directly on her.  Even if she hadn't deliberately created a situation that caused breach of security, she was still aware of the laws on what do when you receive classified information through an unsecured means.
Quote
I am not sure that Clinton did not do wrong, but the ~25 year track track record indicates a high likelihood that this scandal is manufactured
I said the other day that to support Clinton you either had to not care that she tells self serving lies or believe that everyone does and the exceptional part is that she is being attacked for it.  I should have added that you could also, contrary to all evidence, just believe that what she says is true.  Sigh.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on January 21, 2016, 10:58:54 AM
Quote
People aren't "screaming" at Cruz because there isn't any mystery or secrecy.  Same with John McCain.  The debate with Cruz is a matter of law, for which there is no clear answer.  The debate with President Obama wasn't a question of law, either he was absolutely eligible to be President or was not, it was a question of fact - where he was borne - and his deliberate choice to incite the debate by being secretive.
He wasn't secretive. The question of fact was resolved long before he became President. He just let his detractors spool out the rope and tie the knot and then them hang themselves. He fulfilled the legal requirements and was under no obligation to provide more information just to satisfy a pack of racists and conspiracy theorists.

If there'd been any legitimate question of Obama's birthplace, do you really think Clinton would have passed up the opportunity? I don't see how you can maintain there was uncertainty about where Obama was born in the same thread where you argue that Clinton is a self-serving liar. Why wouldn't she have taken the end run around Obama's popularity?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 10:59:17 AM
Quote
Um what?  It is known that the emails were classified when they showed up on her server, that they were classified before they got to her server and that some where classified when they left her server.  It is known that the contents of her server were held in at least 3 unsecure locations in violation of federal law.  What news are you actually reading?
What?  I appreciate your entirely non-partisan outrage over everything Clinton, but it is *not* known the emails were classified when the showed up on her server, or that she broke the law by receiving them.  Show me something other than the right wing echo chamber assertion that she broke any law.  Here's an NPR analysis (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law) about the situation.

Quote
People aren't "screaming" at Cruz because there isn't any mystery or secrecy.  Same with John McCain.  The debate with Cruz is a matter of law, for which there is no clear answer.  The debate with President Obama wasn't a question of law, either he was absolutely eligible to be President or was not, it was a question of fact - where he was borne - and his deliberate choice to incite the debate by being secretive.
I hate to borrow this word from Pete, but this is truly an obtuse response.  *If* Obama was born in Kenya or on Mars, he would be no more or less eligible to be President than Cruz.  I can't fathom how you separate those two things and claim Cruz born in Canada to a mother who was a US citizen is any different from Obama being born to a mother who was a US citizen on the planet Phlogiston.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 21, 2016, 11:13:38 AM
If there'd been any legitimate question of Obama's birthplace, do you really think Clinton would have passed up the opportunity? I don't see how you can maintain there was uncertainty about where Obama was born in the same thread where you argue that Clinton is a self-serving liar. Why wouldn't she have taken the end run around Obama's popularity?

To be fair even if she thought there was some doubt it might have been a strategic error to make an issue out of that. First of all if it proved to be incorrect it could make her look stupid and hurt her campaign, therefore making it a safer bet to stay away from that. Second of all, the DNC might just as soon have instructed their candidates to ignore that topic since they wouldn't want to be seen as having infighting within the party.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 11:15:58 AM
He wasn't secretive. The question of fact was resolved long before he became President. He just let his detractors spool out the rope and tie the knot and then them hang themselves. He fulfilled the legal requirements and was under no obligation to provide more information just to satisfy a pack of racists and conspiracy theorists.
I agree with your conclusion about fulfilling the legal obligation, I don't agree that he wasn't deliberately secretive.
Quote
If there'd been any legitimate question of Obama's birthplace, do you really think Clinton would have passed up the opportunity?
To attack him directly?  Yes.  Absolutely she would have.  She'd have to have been guaranteed a nomination to risk alienating core Democratic voters (who she'd need on her next run if she lost) in such a way.  Think about the picture if she'd attacked the first African American candidate with a real chance at becoming President by asserting he was born in Africa and ineligible.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 11:21:36 AM
Quote
Um what?  It is known that the emails were classified when they showed up on her server, that they were classified before they got to her server and that some where classified when they left her server.  It is known that the contents of her server were held in at least 3 unsecure locations in violation of federal law.  What news are you actually reading?
What?  I appreciate your entirely non-partisan outrage over everything Clinton, but it is *not* known the emails were classified when the showed up on her server, or that she broke the law by receiving them.  Show me something other than the right wing echo chamber assertion that she broke any law.  Here's an NPR analysis (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law) about the situation.
You want to explain why you are citing to an "analysis" that is over a year old, that still asserts that emails from Clinton's wiped server may be unrecoverable?

If that's what you are basing your conclusion that she didn't violate the law or that she didn't receive or send classified emails you may want to read a more recent report.  We're currently closing in on 2000 emails of various states of classified that have been identified as having been on the server, the State Department has already lost at least one challenge where it tried to claim emails were retroactively classified.  There's really no excuse to have the opinion you seem to have at this point.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on January 21, 2016, 11:24:05 AM
I don't have to imagine it, the GOP provided examples in spades.

I suppose the question is better, if was a legitimate question wouldn't Clinton have been able not only to make the charge but also make it stick? The race was close enough she just need a little more momentum or kill a little more of his and she could have gotten it. And that year, the election was essentially decided by the Democratic primary. After Bush, the GOP wasn't going to win unless both Dems imploded.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 11:34:38 AM
I suppose the question is better, if was a legitimate question wouldn't Clinton have been able not only to make the charge but also make it stick? The race was close enough she just need a little more momentum or kill a little more of his and she could have gotten it.
But that goes to a longstanding complaint I have about the Democrat's they don't care about the means, only the ends.  There is no way to carry a "technically illegal" argument to the Democratic base in a way that will resonate because they simply don't care if its illegal if its a good thing.  With the Republican's something like that could work - exhibit A how the attack is working with Cruz.  And if you think its bad in the primary, watch what happens if he gets in the general election, I can guaranty one or more Democratic attorney generals will try to use the courts to force his disqualification.
Quote
And that year, the election was essentially decided by the Democratic primary. After Bush, the GOP wasn't going to win unless both Dems imploded.
Of course, dare to you re-elect George Bush candidate John Kerry didn't work out so well for the Democrats on nearly the same circumstances.  No matter how obvious it is, a party can always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm mean look at the Democrats this year, they are more than likely going to nominate either a candidate who faces a serious risk of being indicted or a candidate who will literally be a socialist.  Either one of those situations could cause a complete fail in the general election.  I've been saying it for months, is there seriously no one better they can run?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 11:36:45 AM
Quote
You want to explain why you are citing to an "analysis" that is over a year old, that still asserts that emails from Clinton's wiped server may be unrecoverable?
No, it's not.  The NPR article is from last April and was updated last month.  Give me your trusted sources that validate your analysis about the 2,000 emails.  When you say "we're closing in", I believe that you are identifying with people who are praying that their wishes will be gratified, not with people who simply want an objective answer, which I and most less partisan observers do.  If she broke the law, she pays the consequences, but if she didn't, you and the rest of the GOP should just find another bone to gnaw on.  Maybe Obama is her love child or she wasn't naturally born.  Remember that Macbeth was killed by someone not of woman born.  If it was a C-section...what does the Constitution say about that?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on January 21, 2016, 11:40:36 AM
Quote
Of course, dare to you re-elect George Bush candidate John Kerry didn't work out so well for the Democrats on nearly the same circumstances.  No matter how obvious it is, a party can always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
It's probably 20/20 hindsight given the economy and McCain's campaign. It feels like it was inevitable but I'm not sure when it would have started to appear so.

I expect the question of legal charges will be settled by the time the primary is decided. At least for the issues currently under consideration.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 12:00:51 PM
Quote
You want to explain why you are citing to an "analysis" that is over a year old, that still asserts that emails from Clinton's wiped server may be unrecoverable?
No, it's not.  The NPR article is from last April and was updated last month.  Give me your trusted sources that validate your analysis about the 2,000 emails.
Updated, and yet didn't correct information that is generally known to be wrong (ie that the deleted messages have been recovered).  Not clear what the updating was.  So even though you can go, literally, to every major news organization on the planet and do a search for classified emails and get a result that demonstrates somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand emails you can't find it?

Since you like NPR, here's another out of date link (still predates the server recovery) that indicates over 100 emails with classified information in them.  http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/11/439456567/fact-check-hillary-clintons-email-defense-is-a-mixed-bag)

Here's another one, which refers to over 1200 emails that have been "retroactively" upgraded to classified.  Just a note, there is no indication that any "retroactive" upgrading occured, that seems to be NPR's way to continue to carry water for the Clinton campaign.  I can see why you're so confused if you're using NPR as your sole news source, they clearly have a horse in this debate.  http://www.npr.org/2015/12/31/461638795/hillary-clinton-emails-i-only-know-what-i-hear-on-npr-and-car-ride-flowcharts (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/31/461638795/hillary-clinton-emails-i-only-know-what-i-hear-on-npr-and-car-ride-flowcharts)

In any event, like I said, you can literally go to any major news source on the planet and find the evidence.  And by the way I said approaching 2000, not 2000.  Is there some reason you are always unwilling to acknowledge facts and make an argument?
Quote
If she broke the law, she pays the consequences, but if she didn't, you and the rest of the GOP should just find another bone to gnaw on.  Maybe Obama is her love child or she wasn't naturally born.  Remember that Macbeth was killed by someone not of woman born.  If it was a C-section...what does the Constitution say about that?
She broke the law.  I have no doubt though that you don't care about that, notwithstanding your claim.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 12:11:30 PM
That was quite a string of deflections and backtracking.  So, you kind of admit the article is in fact current, but dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your story line.  You also can't come up with a source for your repeated claim of "approaching 2,000" classified emails, but you say that retroactively classifying 1,200 emails (actually, more like 1,250 but still far less than "approaching 2,000") doesn't count as a defense against GOP claims of illegal acts.  You finish with a flourish by saying that I just plain refuse to admit that she broke the law.  But all you've done is expose that you have nothing concrete to back that up.  It's clear that what she did was unwise and she should be (and has been) severely criticized for it, but that falls far short of proof that she broke the law.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 21, 2016, 12:15:31 PM
That was quite a string of deflections and backtracking.  So, you kind of admit the article is in fact current, but dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your story line.
No.  I flatly reject it as current.  You're literally arguing in bad faith.
Quote
You also can't come up with a source for your repeated claim of "approaching 2,000" classified emails, but you say that retroactively classifying 1,200 emails (actually, more like 1,250 but still far less than "approaching 2,000") doesn't count as a defense against GOP claims of illegal acts.  You finish with a flourish by saying that I just plain refuse to admit that she broke the law.  But all you've done is expose that you have nothing concrete to back that up.  It's clear that what she did was unwise and she should be (and has been) severely criticized for it, but that falls far short of proof that she broke the law.
So let me get this straight.  You are presented with indisputable proof that your link includes out of date information, provided with links to your preferred news provider, and are still dishonest enough to continue to assert your original thesis as if it were still completely valid?  Could you be more discredited?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 21, 2016, 04:57:29 PM
Al argues that Seriati's sources are invalid because they are biased and then produces a biased source of his own.

Here Al.  I spent 30 seconds and found an article from CBS.  Happy now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 05:00:33 PM
Did you miss this in that article?
Quote
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."

"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."
Nothing new, but definitely delicious.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 21, 2016, 05:03:07 PM
She didn't have to write the emails to be breaking the law.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 06:03:43 PM
I've blown off this issue ages ago but let me see if I've got the logic right Lloyd.

If someone emails you top secret documents that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using the official government email servers, No harm no foul?  Like forgetting to use the official office stationary when sending out a cover letter on a business proposal?

If someone emails you a top secret document that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using a personal email server (something otherwise legal), you should be burned at the stake?  Like if someone emailed and got you to open child pornography you should then be locked for receiving them?

Is that a grossly simplified version of the thinking?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 07:54:45 PM
Quote
If someone emails you a top secret document that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using a personal email server (something otherwise legal), you should be burned at the stake?

Operating from limited information, I would say that if you are Secretary of Defense in such a situation, that standards of competence would require you to say something to or about the person who is sending you docs in an insecure manner.  Not to continue or allow the insecure info transfer.  It's like you are the chief surgeon in an operation where some of the nurses are chain smoking, taking unauthorized cell phone pics of the unconscious patient and putting them on facebook.  As the person in charge, you may be criminally negligent for failure to protect the patient.


Just responding to your question based on info mostly drawn from the discussion here, and adding my own understanding of criminal negligence. Not sure what the actual crime charges are, and don't have a bone in this fight. I hope she hasn't been criminally negligent, since she obviously has the skills to make a spectacular diplomat. I would suggest Ambassador th Lybia.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 21, 2016, 07:55:17 PM
Quote
No.  I flatly reject it as current.  You're literally arguing in bad faith.
Do you disagree that the article was originally posted 9 months ago and updated 1 month ago?  If you accept those dates, which are more recent than the article being over a year old, what do you mean by "current"?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 08:17:12 PM
I'd agree with you Pete.   The accusations seem to avoid that type of low hanging fruit.  Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.   So much so that someone is sending it and she is reading it and it's obvious to neither.

Now because this may be the case,  the whole scenario shouldn't fall into a gray zone.  It was a DUMB way to... do whatever shady or misguided efficiency scheme she had in mind.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 08:42:46 PM
I'd agree with you Pete.   The accusations seem to avoid that type of low hanging fruit.  Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.   So much so that someone is sending it and she is reading it and it's obvious to neither.

Now because this may be the case,  the whole scenario shouldn't fall into a gray zone.  It was a DUMB way to... do whatever shady or misguided efficiency scheme she had in mind.

Nicely said. That "low-hanging fruit" line makes you sound like you've had a legal education. 

I wonder how many of the Republican candidates have a legal education?  Perhaps the reason they don't want to go after her for "negligence" is Mrs Clinton seems extremely shrewd, bright, and recognizing that her crime, if any, was error, might humanize her.  But I think they could spin it as an error born of hubris, which is probably accurate, and believable given her husband's history. 

If it is true that Rice and Powell also kept private servers, then it would be hard to argue more than negligence. (The next step up would be recklessness).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 21, 2016, 08:53:31 PM
More importantly, US politicians have good personal interest reasons to avoid setting a precedent for prosecuting politicians for criminal negligence.  LoL
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 21, 2016, 09:11:42 PM
You may be onto something to explain why they prefer to overreach and just hope the vague "something bad went down and you can't trust them" sticks.

The crap part is "something bad" probably did go down,  but my negative reaction to the ploy is stronger than the reaction I have to the shocking theory politicians treat rules and law as a game to be played.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 22, 2016, 12:24:01 PM
A Former Attorney General explains why she should be charged.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on January 22, 2016, 12:43:04 PM
Quote
Because of this,  I infer / assume she likely did...  That,  or the line on what is top secret / classified is not always obvious.

I believe it is far more likely that she didn't know the information was classified because it may not be obvious that is was classified.

Extrapolating from how we are required by the government to handle technical information at work, simply quoting a line from a controlled document in an e-mail makes can make that e-mail controlled, too--even if the information may be publically available (as on the internet).  Assuming that a similar rule applies to secret documents, it would be trivially easy to put in a line from a secret document in an e-mail, making the entire e-mail "secret."  Thus the requirement to label such e-mails "secret" by the sender.

Now just imagine that you are a government official who receives dozens of e-mails a day.  Would you expect that you'd be able to recognize a line that contains information from a secret document?  Would you expect anyone to be able to recognize it from the hundreds of classified documents that exist, including ones the person is not familiar with?

Of course, some information is obviously classified, or something that Hillary could have recognized.  The devil is in the details.  But just because information is classified doesn't mean it is obvious.  It could look innocuous, and only after careful analysis would it be revealed to be classified.

----

Alas, Lloyd, the WSJ opinion piece appears to require a subscription.  Do you have a cheaper source? :)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 22, 2016, 01:08:50 PM
For me, it breaks down on if there was a legal method of handling being the recipient of an obviously top secret document.  What responsibility, as a recipient, does she have to safeguard those communications?

If there is a responsibility to do so (not only obey the rules but prevent others from breaking them in your presence) how is operating a private server not concretely prohibited?  I know a lot of things can get messy in a bureaucracy, but really?  This seems like the kind of thing even technologically illiterate old men could have foreseen and written into law.

As it was not, either the whole system is full of idiots (plausible I guess) or she didn't do anything wrong.  (likely) 
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on January 22, 2016, 01:18:21 PM
For me, it breaks down on if there was a legal method of handling being the recipient of an obviously top secret document.  What responsibility, as a recipient, does she have to safeguard those communications?

If there is a responsibility to do so (not only obey the rules but prevent others from breaking them in your presence) how is operating a private server not concretely prohibited?  I know a lot of things can get messy in a bureaucracy, but really?  This seems like the kind of thing even technologically illiterate old men could have foreseen and written into law.

As it was not, either the whole system is full of idiots (plausible I guess) or she didn't do anything wrong.  (likely)
Not wrong as far as the handling of classified material anyways but I think there's something wrong with the concept of (and motivation for) using a private server to conduct public business.

The frustrating thing about the way this story is covered is that it's hard to tell if new stories are actual developments or just the GOP trying to resurrect old accusations. For the spectator without an obligation to make a decision based on it it's annoyingly difficult to stay up to date.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 22, 2016, 01:56:34 PM
Until charges are brought, I assume it's all BS politicking.  Not a catch all, but it saves a lot of energy.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 22, 2016, 01:58:35 PM
It looks like the "beyond top secret" hype is likely just that and this report doesn't increase the likelihood that she committed a crime.  But even if the messages were in that category when she received them, she didn't commit a crime by them being sent to her.  What I don't see online at the moment is whether the sender technically would have committed a crime by sending BTS materials outside of the secure government network.  Why aren't the supposed sources of these emails being investigated with even greater vigor?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 22, 2016, 02:05:55 PM
Maybe they should give Microsoft, Google and Apple a backdoor into the federal and private use government servers.  I'm sure they can craft some sort of top secret spam filter.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 22, 2016, 02:14:00 PM
What I don't see online at the moment is whether the sender technically would have committed a crime by sending BTS materials outside of the secure government network.  Why aren't the supposed sources of these emails being investigated with even greater vigor?

We've already discussed that. How can someone who must send Hillary an email send it if her only email address is at her private server? Should they send a telegram by courier, or maybe tap it by Morse code over the phone? Also how could you possibly expect someone who isn't very close to her to know that her email domain happens to also be hosted on a private server? There's no way to tell that based just on the email address itself, and I doubt she sent out a massive memo to every government employee warning them she was using a private server and not to send her classified information. No, when she decided to do that her responsibility when receiving any classified information was to notify someone (no idea who, exactly) so that the security breach could be corrected.

However since we know she was conducting state business and receiving intelligence updates from her man Sid through her email, there was obviously classified information in there. Just a few of her emails I read the other week had to have contained classified information since their content was a) secret, and b) insider information available only through diplomatic channels. It also bears repeating that even though she may have been the first person to receive this information, thus meaning no one could previously have marked it as classified, it is standard policy in the intelligence community to understand that anything containing sensitive or secret information (certainly anything pertaining to national security or active operations abroad) is automatically considered to be classified whether or not it happens to say the word "classified" at the top. I don't particular see this topic as being ambiguous, although I personally don't have any stake in her being charged even if they determine they could make a case against her on this. I think mentioning that keeping a private server was wrong is good enough, and I'm much more interested in the actual contents of some of the emails, just in terms of disclosure.

However my concern on this topic isn't that I want to see her indicted, but rather that I feared others might, and that it could crash her campaign. I still think this could happen, although heck if I know how to assess the odds of it.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 22, 2016, 02:35:59 PM
Quote
However since we know she was conducting state business and receiving intelligence updates from her man Sid through her email, there was obviously classified information in there.
Ol' Sid wasn't a government employee, let alone cleared for top-secret.  Why do you think he was sending and receiving such information?
Quote
insider information available only through diplomatic channels
Is that a new classified category?
Quote
However my concern on this topic isn't that I want to see her indicted, but rather that I feared others might, and that it could crash her campaign. I still think this could happen, although heck if I know how to assess the odds of it.
At some point voter saturation will kick in and people will automatically discount new "scandal" information if it is in any way tied to the GOP.  The whole Benghazi! and expanded investigations that the House initiated and are still ongoing (but are oddly quiet lately) have effectively tainted the cudgel of truth as being nothing more than a political shiv to stick in her back.  So, if someone digs up Vince Foster and he claims that Hillary and Bill personally whacked him, people might be inclined to say, "Yeah, well, we heard about that a long time ago.  What else is new?"
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 22, 2016, 02:36:22 PM
The perception of wrong doing IS a danger.  I'm convinced that there is no danger of indictment though.

Again, if what you lay out (that the only possible path of top secret communication is through an unsecured / unapproved email server) then this wouldn't have happened.

There is obviously (to me at least) another channel used for top secret communication.  If that was not the case, there would be a hard and fast rule against a private server.  It wouldn't exist in this gray area of "really bad idea, yet technically legal".  Now that said, it IS a really bad idea because you can't guarantee nobody will make a mistake and use this channel.  If the typical setup is a safety net to guard against this very thing (improperly channeled information) then, to me at least, she made a gamble she shouldn't have.

And because I don't like to attribute jaw dropping stupidity to all politicians (I like to throw in self serving deviousness now and then) I expect she thought that the benefits of going without that safety net was worth whatever convenience or advantage she gained by hosting her own servers.  This IS a strike against her IMO.  First for trying to game the system to her own advantage by taking a potential risk (unless even that is B.S. and there is no tangible risk) and second by loosing the bet.  If it went beyond a smear campaign I don't believe the GOP could keep it in their pants this long.

They are hoping their fairy godmother (or manly and hetero God-father?) delivers them a miracle and their opposition self destructs before their eyes if only they believe... really hard.  Click your heels together 3 times and repeat benghazi & emails until the general election is over.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on January 22, 2016, 02:44:15 PM
Quote
We've already discussed that. How can someone who must send Hillary an email send it if her only email address is at her private server? Should they send a telegram by courier, or maybe tap it by Morse code over the phone? Also how could you possibly expect someone who isn't very close to her to know that her email domain happens to also be hosted on a private server? There's no way to tell that based just on the email address itself, and I doubt she sent out a massive memo to every government employee warning them she was using a private server and not to send her classified information. No, when she decided to do that her responsibility when receiving any classified information was to notify someone (no idea who, exactly) so that the security breach could be corrected.
The lack of .gov or .mil would be sufficient evidence it was not an appropriate server. More to the point, if you're sending classified information it is the responsibility of the sender that the destination is appropriately secure.  A non-standard email address would be a major red flag.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 22, 2016, 02:50:23 PM
Am I the only one who thinks there is likely an entirely, and intentionally, divorced from typical day to day business channel that top secret / classified information is transmitted electronically?  If it must be transmitted that way at all (I envision a lot of couriers hand delivering *censored* much to the dismay of tree huggers) there is probably someone who's job it is to put the time sensitive info in front of her face.  Or at least notify her that there is an "eye's only" notification she should go check out on the magical secret box on it's own hard line to... wherever.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on January 22, 2016, 10:16:49 PM
I thought that this was a good article.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-media-landscape-makes-national-reviews-pursuit-to-take-out-trump-pointless-as-it-is-pouty/
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 23, 2016, 07:39:26 AM
It's no secret that Trump is no Conservative, he's a Flamboyant.  That grates the NR who think they are the thought leaders of a moneyed right-wing establishment. They're in a tizzy because Trump has exposed that they and their "principled conservatism" may always have been no more than an illusion that exists for the sole purpose of partisan activism to Preserve the Status Quo.  Sanders is far more fresh and real, but he has no Party apparatus to support his constituency.  His first 100 days in office would be his last in terms of his legislative agenda.  The two things he and Trump have in common is that they upend and upset the so-called leaders of their Parties, and if either is elected he will be almost completely ineffective in office.  Either of them would make even Republicans long for the days of Obama.  But if you feel the need to really shout your dissatisfaction with How Things Are, why not go all the way and write in Buchanan or Nader on your ballot?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on January 23, 2016, 10:51:44 AM
Because I don't support the policies of Nader and Buchanon. I support the policies of Sanders, and want him to be President.

I don't really care if he could convince the legislature to pass his reforms or not. A European style socialist sitting on the Presidential soapbox for four years, getting a chance to sell his ideas to the public, would make it entirely worthwhile to me. Because Sanders, unlike the other candidates, has always been straightforward and open about his policy positions, and he wouldn't spend his first four years in power worrying about how his actions would affect the next election.

I'll say this, as well. I've never really liked H Clinton, but I was willing to hold my nose and vote for her over most Republicans. Her hypocrisy, attitude, and the way her supporters have been acting have just about convinced me to not vote at all if she wins the Democratic nomination.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 23, 2016, 11:03:25 AM
Quote
Because I don't support the policies of Nader and Buchanon. I support the policies of Sanders, and want him to be President.
FWIW, I didn't mean you personally.  As for her attitude and her supporters, this is crunch time to swing people away from the other guy and towards yourself.  We're entering the "politics ain't beanbag" part of the program. It is already much more vicious on the GOP side and will only get moreso.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2016, 12:54:16 PM
But if you feel the need to really shout your dissatisfaction with How Things Are, why not go all the way and write in Buchanan or Nader on your ballot?

I suspected from the start you were a die-hard Hillary supporter, evidenced by your faux inquiry into Sander's 'qualifications' to be President which was in fact a not-so-subtle effort to show you don't think he's qualified (despite there being no rational basis for such a belief).

But now you've gone further and you are asserting that if you're not going to vote for Hillary you may as well spoil your ballot for all the good it will do. If a vote for Sanders is a vote against status quo politics, then why not just vote for Buchanan, huh? Nice. I'll know going forward how to read between the lines of further comments you make on the subject.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 23, 2016, 01:28:18 PM
Quote
The two things he and Trump have in common is that they upend and upset the so-called leaders of their Parties, and if either is elected he will be almost completely ineffective in office. 

I have to wonder: what indeed would an "ineffective" president look like? Because when Obama had the entire Congress and Senate on his side, almost every lever of government at his party's command, the best he could do was the Affordable Care Act, a byzantine Frankenstein's Monster of a bill for healthcare reform. And then he lost the senate and the congress. So in what way is Obama "effective" and how would Hillary be more so?

My point is, voters already tried the establishment types. What do they have to lose at this point?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 23, 2016, 01:33:42 PM
My point is, voters already tried the establishment types. What do they have to lose at this point?

To second this point, I'll add that the status quo doesn't merely mean things remaining stagnant, but also means the active continuation of various bad things that are part of the status quo. It does not mean] nothing happens for another Presidency; it means nothing good happens. It's not as if things have been acceptable and we would be fine with more of the same. Whether it's Wall Street or foreign policy, we absolutely will not be fine with more of the same. Only an idiot keeps trying the same thing over and over expecting to get a different result.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 23, 2016, 07:36:42 PM
Quote
I have to wonder: what indeed would an "ineffective" president look like? Because when Obama had the entire Congress and Senate on his side, almost every lever of government at his party's command, the best he could do was the Affordable Care Act, a byzantine Frankenstein's Monster of a bill for healthcare reform. And then he lost the senate and the congress. So in what way is Obama "effective" and how would Hillary be more so?

My point is, voters already tried the establishment types. What do they have to lose at this point?
Interesting that you find him ineffective given the state of the economy when he was elected compared to what it is now, the abject and unyielding obstructionism of the Congress and his accomplishments in the face of that.  Don't compare him to his hopeful message on the way in, but if you do, remember Romney's promises on the campaign trail, and consider that Obama has met or exceeded almost every one of them even while Romney and the GOP Congress insisted that he would destroy the economy.  Maybe you don't like him, but you should look carefully to see how he has failed to measure up to real-world standards.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 24, 2016, 10:54:34 AM
Quote
I have to wonder: what indeed would an "ineffective" president look like? Because when Obama had the entire Congress and Senate on his side, almost every lever of government at his party's command, the best he could do was the Affordable Care Act, a byzantine Frankenstein's Monster of a bill for healthcare reform. And then he lost the senate and the congress. So in what way is Obama "effective" and how would Hillary be more so?

My point is, voters already tried the establishment types. What do they have to lose at this point?
Interesting that you find him ineffective given the state of the economy when he was elected compared to what it is now, the abject and unyielding obstructionism of the Congress and his accomplishments in the face of that.  Don't compare him to his hopeful message on the way in, but if you do, remember Romney's promises on the campaign trail, and consider that Obama has met or exceeded almost every one of them even while Romney and the GOP Congress insisted that he would destroy the economy.  Maybe you don't like him, but you should look carefully to see how he has failed to measure up to real-world standards.

WTF? Obama's fulfilled Romney's promises? Like what, keep Gizmo open?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 24, 2016, 11:57:37 AM
It's entirely predictable that some here would bring up promises that he failed to keep, as if any of them invalidate all of his accomplishments and make him a bad President.  You'll note in the comment of mine that you responded to that: "Don't compare him to his hopeful message on the way in...", but that's exactly what you have decided to focus on. 

There's also Gingrich's prediction that gas would rise to $10/gallon if Obama was re-elected (Romney said it would be about $5.60, but it's now $1.60 where I live), Romney predicted employment would be stuck at 8% (he promised to lower it to 6%, but it's now about 5%), he and others predicted the stock market would lose at least 20% from its 2012 levels (Marc Faber said it would drop by over 50%, but it's up about 30% even with the recent drop), and Romney and others predicted wide-spread catastrophe in the economy (Limbaugh predicted California would declare bankruptcy, but it's in much better shape now than it was in 2012).  The growth in the federal debt is far below Romney's predictions, which were partly based on Obama runaway spending and the collapse of the economy.  He also predicted that Obamacare would be a colossal failure causing a $700B+ cut in Medicare expenditures (Obamacare has instead increased the expected life of the Medicare program by about 13 years; even Cruz's family is receiving health insurance subsidized by Congress, though he didn't even realize he was covered).

But, yes, he said he would close Guantanamo and that hasn't happened, so he can go to hell (there are fewer than 100 prisoners left now).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Gaoics79 on January 24, 2016, 08:04:17 PM
Quote
Interesting that you find him ineffective given the state of the economy when he was elected compared to what it is now,

I don't credit him for the economic recovery post 2008 crisis any more than I blame him for the aftermath of the crisis. I don't actually think his policies had much to do with either.

Quote
the abject and unyielding obstructionism of the Congress and his accomplishments in the face of that. 

You're referring to the Congress controlled by the Democrats when Obama first came to power? That obstructionist Congress? :)

Quote
Don't compare him to his hopeful message on the way in, but if you do, remember Romney's promises on the campaign trail, and consider that Obama has met or exceeded almost every one of them even while Romney and the GOP Congress insisted that he would destroy the economy.  Maybe you don't like him, but you should look carefully to see how he has failed to measure up to real-world standards.

If that's true then Romney was really aiming low. Either that, or most of what Romney was promising was stuff that was going to happen regardless. Politicians love to take credit for stuff that has little or nothing to do with their policies. But when things go wrong, they're quick to blame whoever happened to be holding the baton at that specific instance.

But I digress. It is difficult for me to imagine any presidency less effective than Obama's, although to be fair, Romney may have been just as ineffective. Part of the problem is systemic.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: JoshCrow on January 24, 2016, 08:57:46 PM
But I digress. It is difficult for me to imagine any presidency less effective than Obama's, although to be fair, Romney may have been just as ineffective. Part of the problem is systemic.

Interestingly, people can and do track how well a president meets promises.

On 500+ promises, Obama kept 45%, compromised on 25%, broke 22% and has another 8% tied up or ongoing:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

It's certainly mixed as records go, but with an unusually intransigent opposition coupled with the rise of the filibuster threat, it's hard to really expect more from the White House anymore. I'd wager this is as good as it gets for a president. As you say, there is a systemic element at work here.


Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 24, 2016, 09:39:38 PM
Quote
You're referring to the Congress controlled by the Democrats when Obama first came to power? That obstructionist Congress? :)
With a GOP contingent that did everything possible to undercut his actions, but we're talking about the 2012 election, aren't we?  What was the composition of Congress from then until now?
Quote
If that's true then Romney was really aiming low. Either that, or most of what Romney was promising was stuff that was going to happen regardless.
Yes, this is the pattern that is so recognizable.  Anything he did was going to happen even if he curled up in a ball and slept all the way through, but even if Romney had no such expectations from the policies he proposed, Obama *still* underdelivered on what Romney would likely have accomplished.  Fascinating how the Antibaman mind works.
Quote
On 500+ promises, Obama kept 45%, compromised on 25%, broke 22% and has another 8% tied up or ongoing
Given the Congress he had to work with and the incredibly difficult circumstances he encountered in the beginning of his first term that are still being felt to some degree today, I'd say he did a pretty good job.  Jason, plug "obama consequential" into Google and see what pops up -- don't use the FOX search engine, as it won't understand the phrase.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 24, 2016, 10:29:00 PM
Al, looking back at Romney's predictions and comparing current reality to them is a farcical way to examine Obama's relative success or failure in office. In fact I entirely agree with you that Romney's 'predictions' are basically a bunch of crap he pulled out of a crystal ball, which means that any reference to them at all is pointless; both in showing that Obama has succeeded, or that he's failed. So many changes have occurred in the world since 2012 (the Arab Spring and its consequences, the oil price drop due to fracking and other factors, problems in Europe, etc) that any predictions made with information at that time are completely invalid. Which, of course, means it's stupid to make predictions of that sort (meaning Romney was blowing steam). But touting a currently low oil price against Romney's prediction is about as irrelevant a comparison as one could make given what's happened since then. Obviously Obama didn't do anything personally to make the price plummet, so the whole issue is a red herring. The arguments about the economy are equally suspect because I frankly don't trust the information being put out about employment levels (and many experts don't either) or about the state of the economy. I also don't have much faith in the overall health of the stock market regardless of how much it's gone up since 2012. Any little blip in the stability of the system (which is far from stable) and it could melt.

All this to say, I don't think there's much evidence that continuing on as we've been doing is some sort of assurance that things will remain stable and fine. They're not stable and fine, and on current trends will not become so in the foreseeable future. A change is required, and even Hillary is saying so; the difference between her and Bernie is that she's saying it because she has to to have any hope of winning, whereas Bernie actually believes it and wants change. That's more than enough for me.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 06:39:32 AM
Quote
All this to say, I don't think there's much evidence that continuing on as we've been doing is some sort of assurance that things will remain stable and fine. They're not stable and fine, and on current trends will not become so in the foreseeable future. A change is required, and even Hillary is saying so; the difference between her and Bernie is that she's saying it because she has to to have any hope of winning, whereas Bernie actually believes it and wants change. That's more than enough for me.
Given the substance of both your and Jason's responses, it apparently makes no difference who is President. Some things would have happened anyway, so he can't take credit for any good thing that has happened on his watch.  But even if he could, he can't claim anything he's done has constructive value for the future because circumstances can change.  That means it's too soon to even say he *might* have done some good things.  And now you point out that the next likely President, who is of his own party, says that even she thinks he didn't accomplish much and that things must change; if he had done good things, she would promise to continue his policies intact, even though the world is a different place today than when he took office.  My head is spinning.  But it won't matter if she's elected anyway, because she'll be as useless as he has been.  I guess we'll have to turn to the GOP candidates for a positive message and hope for real change.  They aren't making unrealistic promises and won't take credit for good things that might happen if they are elected, I suppose.

It must suck to be President and know that you are so powerless while the GOP complains that everything you do is going to destroy the economy, all of your freedoms and the very future of the nation and thwarts you at every turn.  So, he can't do anything positive, and it wouldn't matter if he did, because everything he has done is wrong and have made things worse.

And yet things did get better instead of worse and a now that a new Presidential election cycle is underway, they complain even louder about how miserable he's been and how terrible the things he's done are.   

In a farcical reality, why even vote?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 25, 2016, 10:11:22 AM
Given the substance of both your and Jason's responses, it apparently makes no difference who is President.

Just because no real change has happened for ~12 years doesn't mean it can't happen. Certainly there was a lot of change in W's first term, although it wasn't a change for the better. In terms of how entrenched Wall Street it, it's true that has been ongoing for many years and hasn't changed significantly in that time other than to continue on its trend of becoming more entrenched. A simple look at campaign finance numbers will bear out this claim.

Quote
And now you point out that the next likely President, who is of his own party, says that even she thinks he didn't accomplish much

Seems like you made this part up (including the fact that she's the next likely President ;) ).

Quote
and that things must change;

Yes, she obviously says that. Have you watched the debates?

Quote
if he had done good things, she would promise to continue his policies intact, even though the world is a different place today than when he took office.

She does say this, all the time. On many subjects she says she agrees with what the President has done and will continue in his footsteps. On some others (such as with Wall Street) she says real change is needed. Is this concept obscure? 

Quote
But it won't matter if she's elected anyway, because she'll be as useless as he has been.

This is an opinion, which you seem to be confusing with facts about Hillary's stated positions. What's complicated about understanding that she says certain things because she must (to try to co-opt some of Bernie's support) but is otherwise a status quo candidate?

Quote
I guess we'll have to turn to the GOP candidates for a positive message and hope for real change.  They aren't making unrealistic promises and won't take credit for good things that might happen if they are elected, I suppose.

Translation: "If you won't vote for Hillary then you may as well spoil your ballot." At least you're consistent.

Quote
It must suck to be President and know that you are so powerless while the GOP complains that everything you do is going to destroy the economy, all of your freedoms and the very future of the nation and thwarts you at every turn.  So, he can't do anything positive, and it wouldn't matter if he did, because everything he has done is wrong and have made things worse.

The first part of this statement is true; it definitely must suck. The rest of it makes it appear that you're making straw men out of fairly clear statements.

Quote
In a farcical reality, why even vote?

A sentiment echoed by many people over the years as voter turnout has declined. It's hard to muster the energy to vote when you don't feel it will accomplish anything. Since recent studies have shown that the will of the people is barely relevant in terms of policy compared to special interests one can hardly doubt that this will have a demoralizing effect on the populace. There was a brief spike in both the 2004 turnout (possibly a war-time anomaly) and in 2008 (likely due to people hopefully rallying to Obama's cause), but overall it seems to be clear that many people believe it is a farcical reality. Naturally your solution is "if it ain't broke don't fix it", even though the sentiment of much of America seems to be that it actually is quite broke. My solution would be to try to fix it. Crazy, right?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Greg Davidson on January 25, 2016, 10:30:16 AM
Quote
no real change has happened for ~12 years

I disagree - I think that there has been substantial change between January 2004 and January 2016.  Sure, Donald Trump premiered on television in The Apprentice, and the Carolina Panthers were in the Super Bowl, but in terms of real policy there have been significant changes, including issues that had been policy priorities for decades: health care, gay rights, diplomatic relations with Cuba and Iran. We would not have believed in 2004 the "all of the above" improvements in the energy sector, both with the growth of alternative energy and the US becoming an oil exporter. We also eliminated torture as a US government policy. There also have been conservative triumphs, as with a reinterpretation of a century of law that gives Corporations free speech rights, as well as a significant increase in 2nd Amendment protections for individual gun owners.

And some things changed less or not at all.

How do you feel that this level of change compares to other, similar periods of time?

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 11:12:57 AM
Quote
Yes, she obviously says that. Have you watched the debates?
Point out a candidate that has ever not proposed changes, even when they are running to succeed someone of their own Party.

As to straw men and making things up, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning you and Jason use to claim that things would have been just as good if he had done nothing and although Romney proposed solutions to produce less ambitious outcomes he would have done more.  The key here for both you and Jason is that Obama deserves no credit.  I think Jason was clear that none is deserved, but if I'm reading you wrong, correct my impression by saying what contributions he has made to the improved state of the country since he took office, or more narrowly since the 2012 election.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 25, 2016, 11:13:47 AM
How do you feel that this level of change compares to other, similar periods of time?

Yes, I should have more clearly stated that I meant no real change in terms of how politics operate. There obviously have been literal changes. The supreme court ruling on gay marriage was indeed a change; just not one involving the executive or the Congress. Technological change is ongoing but I count that as a separate subject. The one thing I'll grant you is Cuba; no question there. As for Iran I'm uncertain and it may be too early to tell.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 25, 2016, 11:24:52 AM
WTF are you doing in our waters?!
Umm, sorry, mechanical failure.
Oh... OK, on your way then.

Thanks Obama!
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 25, 2016, 11:29:04 AM
Quote
Yes, she obviously says that. Have you watched the debates?
Point out a candidate that has ever not proposed changes, even when they are running to succeed someone of their own Party.

My point exactly. It comes as no surprise that she'll try to co-opt any movement that has a lot of support, such as Occupy. The thing that seems to get lost in the morass is that we're used to voting for politicians who say the right thing or who put on the correct airs for the times. It is easy to forget that some people don't just say whatever's expedient to win the day; some people actually just say what they think and don't have two faces - the real one, and the official one. Maybe people are sick of politicians who don't speak from the heart and whose statements are more manufactured product than human being. Maybe this can help explain Trump's popularity as well; people even prefer a real human being that presents an ugly side, than a non-human product designed to win an election. In Trump's case I think he may have gamed the people in this sense because it's entirely possible that his 'ugly but real human self' is itself a manufactured product. Perhaps we can call that meta-campaigning. At any rate Hillary offers the standard political-person package, and Bernie is more of a regular guy who fights for what he believes in. Any other differences between them can probably be subsumed under this basic difference, and I think a lot of people are getting that message.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too
Post by: DJQuag on January 25, 2016, 11:37:02 AM
Breaking news - criticising Clinton now makes you a sexist.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/lena-dunham-calling-hillary-clinton-difficult-or-inaccessible-is-rabidly-sexist/
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on January 25, 2016, 11:41:04 AM
"At any rate Hillary offers the standard political-person package, and Bernie is more of a regular guy who fights for what he believes in."

This is pretty much why I'm a Sanders guy, and also the reason that I supported Obama in 08 even when he was still in the "This is a cute campaign and all, but it's just damaging Clinton's chances in the general," stages.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 25, 2016, 11:45:01 AM
Quote
Maybe people are sick of politicians who don't speak from the heart and whose statements are more manufactured product than human being.
This is defiantly true but something I don't understand.  In a government system where consensus building and representing a vast array of interests IS our ideal, why do people hate someone for playing to the crowd and co-opting trends? 

To those of us who don't fit neatly into a "party brand" or long for "the good ol' days" a politician who moves with the weather of the day is not necessarily a bad thing.  Now if their only interest is power consolidation and wealth they may be a danger if they are just using what is popular to achieve it.  But the act of changing one's opinion and going with the popular is NOT a bad trait by itself.

You may argue that a president doesn't have all the power we like to pin on them while assigning blame.  I tend to agree.  However a genuine personality who speaks their mind makes for a diplomat that is beyond worthless, they are down right dangerous to our national interests.  Oh sure we may be lucky enough that the person's private views are what you believe our nation needs right now.  Odds are however that you want someone in the chair who listens to their advisers and takes them self out of the equation.  Then sets the tone and delivers what is best for the nation.  A powerless figurehead (which is far from this situation) is still important.  You may question how much a figurehead can actually achieve but I don't think many disagree that they can certainly sabotage things the rest of the government is trying to achieve.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 25, 2016, 01:10:10 PM
All good points, D.W., and it harkens back to our discussion about voting for a chameleon versus for a principled candidate. There were good reasons being put down for each, and I accept that there is an argument to be made for voting for a skilled chameleon. It's a no-brainer which of the two I, personally, would pick, as I don't believe in general in the dichotomy between having a real self and an official self. I think it promotes self-interested sick behavior much of the time, even though there can be advantages. I also don't think there's some kind of danger that a 'genuine' person will lack the common sense needed to avoid spilling his guts in a diplomacy setting. It's not like Bernie would begin railing against Putin in a summit, "There needs to be a political revolution in Russia!!!" That one point seems to me to be off-point, since neither an honest nor a dishonest person needs to act like an idiot for no reason.

The main point was that there is a substantive difference between Hillary and Bernie (chameleon vs human) and that this difference goes beyond merely having different positions on certain issues. They are entirely different kinds of candidate, and it's my belief that a chameleon will remain loyal to the special interests as long as it's politically expedient to do so. I also have no doubt that an efficient chameleon will also jump ship the moment there's enough momentum in the other direction and will embrace a movement that is already inevitable. The main issue as I see it is that the movement is, at present, not inevitable, and I'd like to see it become so.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 01:50:23 PM
There's always an "other hand", so on the other hand you don't want someone who is so principled that they are deaf to counter-arguments.  That would describe any candidate who panders to the evangelical or fundamentalist religious constituency even more than it would to someone like Sanders.  FWIW, I think it's a huge mistake to think that principles and beliefs are anything like the same thing.  They live in different parts of the brain and have a purely platonic relationship.

I would never vote for a candidate who won't demonstrate some flexibility.  It would make their later "caving" even more egregious.  I prefer a principled candidate with that more flexible attitude.  I think that describes Obama more than it does Bill Clinton, and Hillary might be more flexible than either.  Since Cruz is a pandering liar and huckster, something like Elmer Gantry, I wouldn't trust anything he says or does.  Trump is almost likable in his flamboyant disregard for accountability.  He'll do anything if it makes him look good, even tell the truth when he needs it.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 25, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
In addition to it opening the doors to self-interested sick behavior I think it reveals a level of contempt or superiority towards the voters.  You should be able to say,
"I'm YOUR candidate and will not let my personal views get in the way of running this country for ALL of its citizenry.  I understand that a majority of votes is not a mandate to trample on the desires of the minority."

But we don't live in that world.  And people aren't smart enough to appreciate anyone who would be willing to say (let alone believe) that.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 25, 2016, 02:47:06 PM
I've blown off this issue ages ago but let me see if I've got the logic right Lloyd.
Are you asking about logic or law?  Explain the "logic" behind redirecting emails as the Secretary of State that you know at some times will contain information that is classified to a server outside of the government's network?  Not that I think the government's email system is perfect, but it is certainly designed with minimal levels of security and accountability in mind.  What's the logic?
Quote
If someone emails you top secret documents that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using the official government email servers, No harm no foul?
For whom?  It's not a foul to receive an unsolicited email (not the case with Hilary's server by the way as she solicited senders to send her emails to that account on that server) containing classified information.  It can be a foul to continue to store the email (which she did), is a foul to fail to report it (which she did) and is a foul to forward it or otherwise send information out.
Quote
Like forgetting to use the official office stationary when sending out a cover letter on a business proposal?
In what way?
Quote
If someone emails you a top secret document that are not labeled as such through an unapproved process, and you are using a personal email server (something otherwise legal), you should be burned at the stake?
No.  But if you told someone to send you a top secret document on your google account you should be charged under the existing law.  And if, you say, entered into a special arrangement (without proper authorization or safety measures) to have all your emails redirected from a place where its acceptable to have those emails received to one that is not you can hardly claim that it was not intentional when you receive such documents in that unsecured place.
Quote
Like if someone emailed and got you to open child pornography you should then be locked for receiving them?
No I don't but there are plenty of prosecutors who sanction kids who receive images from other kids on exactly that fact pattern.  You're taking a huge risk if you receive such an email and don't report it.
Quote
Is that a grossly simplified version of the thinking?
No, I think it was an ill-considered attempt at parody.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 25, 2016, 02:49:49 PM
Quote
No.  I flatly reject it as current.  You're literally arguing in bad faith.
Do you disagree that the article was originally posted 9 months ago and updated 1 month ago?  If you accept those dates, which are more recent than the article being over a year old, what do you mean by "current"?
I don't know what you're looking for at this point.  The "updated" article contains statements that were true one year ago and known to be false today, I can't help it if you want to be so trusting as to continue to accept it but I consider it to be refuted as a reliable source at this point.  And given that there are literally thousands of more current sources that contradict it on the substantive point (including as I helpfully provided two from NPR that you should have no trouble accepting) I think you're being obtuse at this point.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 25, 2016, 03:00:07 PM
Quote
Explain the "logic" behind redirecting emails as the Secretary of State that you know at some times will contain information that is classified to a server outside of the government's network?
I don’t KNOW that.  Maybe she did?  Again, if it’s not only a possibility, but a given, how is there even an option to host your own server?  Thus far, all the media attention has been catching a slip up.  Not in saying the existence of the server itself is the illegal act. 
Quote
In what way?
See the sentences in the paragraph my quote was cut from?  That way.  I guess.  Or ask a more specific question.
Quote
No.  But if you told someone to send you a top secret document on your google account you should be charged under the existing law.
If the law says receiving top secret documents on a google account is illegal, I agree.  Is what she set up legally equivalent to a google account?  Did she do this?  Do we have proof she did this?  If so, are those pressing the issue dragging this out to hope to exploit it at the last possible moment to win an election giving their opponents no other options?  (Too late, I think Bernie would be a solid “plan B”) 
Quote
You're taking a huge risk if you receive such an email and don't report it.
Agreed.  Did she receive anything which was indisputably obviously top secret and failed to report it?  Not “she should have known” but something that anyone would know.  Again, if this is the case, why hold their fire?  Just playing politics?
Quote
No, I think it was an ill-considered attempt at parody.
I was trivializing the situation because I don’t take it seriously.  I was not attempting parody because I don’t believe it required any help from me to be absurd. 
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 03:07:28 PM
Quote
The "updated" article contains statements that were true one year ago and known to be false today
For instance?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 25, 2016, 03:20:34 PM
Quote
The "updated" article contains statements that were true one year ago and known to be false today
For instance?
For instance this claim that I cited for you more than once:
"The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server."

Or how about the following line:

"Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law."

We already know that information off the server has been recovered.  We already know that many of the emails turned over and/or recovered contained classified information.

D.W., I'm not sure how to respond to you on this, it seems like you're being aggressive non-informed.  There is no "option" to have a private server, nor was there when Clinton set it up.  The use made it impossible for State to comply with the laws on record retention and freedom of information, there's no clear authorization (let alone proper authorization) to use the server.  There's not even a legitimate dispute that the server met the security requirements to house classified, or even sensitive information. 

And, importantly to me, no one can put forward a reasonable explanation for why she did it in the first place.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on January 25, 2016, 03:33:25 PM
By reasonable, I assume you mean legitimate? I thought it was obvious that she did it in order to maintain control over her communications and their ultimate disposition.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on January 25, 2016, 03:46:13 PM
The reason you are having problems responding to me is that I'm not debating anything.  I am stating that the investigation and media persecution, going on this long, and the lack of any actual legal traction tells me all I need to know.

If she broke the law, she should be prosecuted.  I have no love for the woman or think that she would be so amazing a president that I would dismiss this issue. 

So tell me, do the wheels of justice move so slowly that they can't even move on the openly admitted to facts which you claim was not an "option"?  Nobody stopped her.  Nobody has prosecuted her for this after it became common knowledge she took that option.

I'm not burring my head in the sand.  I'm saying strait out, this is a boy who cried wolf scenario.  Wake me up if the wolf actually eats someone and the hunters put her down.  The torches and pitchforks got old months ago. 

Also you will note, I did not argue the server met any security requirement.  I in fact, suggested/asked if there may not be an entirely separate mechanism to transmit top secret documents.  Do you KNOW the answer?

I'll say one more time.  I think it was a stupid decision.  It was possibly a self serving one.  It may even be illegal (I don't know) but if it IS illegal, and provable, and there is no doubt she did something wrong...

The only conclusion is that the republican party is trying to time their "justice bombs" to do the most possible damage to their political opponents and they don't give a poop about the rule of law.

So it's either pure theater to rile up their base or more reason to vote for any Democrat that isn't behind bars instead of them.  So, I don't know how you respond to me either.  I'm stating opinion.  You can state yours but I'm not really giving you anything to debate.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 04:43:41 PM
Quote
"The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server."
So, you're saying a year ago we didn't think anything might have been deleted?  Really?  You have more faith than I gave you credit for.
Quote
"Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law."

We already know that information off the server has been recovered.  We already know that many of the emails turned over and/or recovered contained classified information.
The implication is not that something placed on her server magically became classified after the fact, but that she knowingly had classified emails on her server.  You see the distinction, don't you?
Quote
And, importantly to me, no one can put forward a reasonable explanation for why she did it in the first place.
This also is nothing new.  You seem to be outraged every time you trip over the same crack in the sidewalk.  Perhaps you need new shoes.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 25, 2016, 06:22:20 PM
The reason you are having problems responding to me is that I'm not debating anything.  I am stating that the investigation and media persecution, going on this long, and the lack of any actual legal traction tells me all I need to know.
How long do you think it takes the FBI to investigate a criminal action of this scope? 
Quote
If she broke the law, she should be prosecuted.
I think the FBI will recommend that she be indicted, not clear if the justice department will actually do so or if the President would intervene with a pardon.
Quote
So tell me, do the wheels of justice move so slowly that they can't even move on the openly admitted to facts which you claim was not an "option"?  Nobody stopped her.  Nobody has prosecuted her for this after it became common knowledge she took that option.
Sorry on that one, the words are getting in the way.  There was no option to use a server in the law, but there was also no flat prohibition.  Kind of like it's not spelled out that you shouldn't use you're federally issued staple to staple a not to the forehead of your co-worker, they just rely on the general law to cover it.  In this case, piles of guidance about not using personal email, policies on using official channels, mandatory record keeping requirements, preservation of records, all of which assume that you have government email.  It's the epitome of arguing for a technical loophole (and completely ignoring the spirit) on using the server as it doesn't say you can't, every law just assumes its required. 

It not being properly authorized is a separate matter, as is it not being secured.
Quote
Also you will note, I did not argue the server met any security requirement.  I in fact, suggested/asked if there may not be an entirely separate mechanism to transmit top secret documents.  Do you KNOW the answer?
Yes.  It's widely reported that there is.  There is also capacity to handle some levels of those documents on official government servers as well.
Quote
he only conclusion is that the republican party is trying to time their "justice bombs" to do the most possible damage to their political opponents and they don't give a poop about the rule of law.
How?  It's the FBI (led by an Obama appointee) that makes the recommendation to Justice (led by an Obama appointee) that determines whether to prosecute.  Yes the Republicans are milking it, and yes the Democrats are downplaying it, but the thing about the Rule of Law is that no one should be above it.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on January 25, 2016, 06:45:51 PM
Quote
"The bottom line is this: No one will likely ever know what was deleted from Clinton's server."
So, you're saying a year ago we didn't think anything might have been deleted?  Really?  You have more faith than I gave you credit for.
Can you read?  Seriously, can you read?

Your source states that it is unlikely anyone will know what was deleted.  That was clearly written before the FBI began recovering the emails.  We now in fact know what many of those emails say.  How is this confusing?
Quote
Quote
"Barring one of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department being deemed "classified," it's also unlikely she will ever be found to have violated the letter of the law."

We already know that information off the server has been recovered.  We already know that many of the emails turned over and/or recovered contained classified information.
The implication is not that something placed on her server magically became classified after the fact, but that she knowingly had classified emails on her server.  You see the distinction, don't you?
How do I do a face palm emoji?  I see the distinction in the words you are using, do you want to reread the article and come back to me when you understand why it doesn't matter?  That's before we even get into how substantively wrong you are about the idea that "retroactive" classification occurred (or is even a real thing) or the idea that she had to 'knowingly have classified emails on the server,' to have a problem.
Quote
Quote
And, importantly to me, no one can put forward a reasonable explanation for why she did it in the first place.
This also is nothing new.  You seem to be outraged every time you trip over the same crack in the sidewalk.  Perhaps you need new shoes.
Go go good team! (Cause nothing matters, rule of law, records preservation, freedom of information principals, government accountability, unless of course it's a Republican in office).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 25, 2016, 07:42:19 PM
You should be able to say,
"I'm YOUR candidate and will not let my personal views get in the way of running this country for ALL of its citizenry.  I understand that a majority of votes is not a mandate to trample on the desires of the minority."

But we don't live in that world.  And people aren't smart enough to appreciate anyone who would be willing to say (let alone believe) that.

I agree with the spirit of what you're suggesting here - that a politician actually should be beholden to the desires of others and not to their own personal agenda or beliefs. However when you walk down this road in the real world you inevitably realize that once a politician is beholden to something other than a stated personal principle it means they will shift with the wind. But this isn't as rosy as it sounds because never is it specified which wind is the one that will guide them. Very rarely will such a person feel compelled to follow the push of popular sentiment; far more often (so much more often that it's considered standard in most of the world) the push that commands them is a special interest, and especially one that sees to it they stand to gain by choosing that interest. In short, when a politician uses their discretion to choose what to believe at as given time, this flexibility is very rarely used to believe in any popular cause, and is typically used to believe that accumulating connections and power is more important. We could go deeper into this and suggest two different types of chameleon in this sense: the corrupt chameleon, and the secret-champion chameleon. The former is just a mercenary and wants more money and power, and perhaps eventually wants to be the one who commands other mercenaries. The latter is the type who believes that in order to make a real chance for the sake of goodness they must first acquire power in the traditional way, and then once they have it they can use it for good. This latter type is probably more common than we think, and I suspect many people go into politics initially with this mindset. All I can say about this is that there is plenty of literature out there precisely on this topic which tends to suggest that this plan is a fool's delusion and that once you do what it takes to acquire power in this way you are forevermore locked into whatever debts and alliances you had to make to get there. Any hope of subverting that system from within is a mere fantasy, where in reality you are the tool of the system rather than the other way around. I have a suspicion, by the way, that this is precisely what happened to Obama.

Back to the topic at hand, let's just say I very much doubt Hillary is this secret-champion type who hopes to make change from within once getting into office. Not that I think those kinds of people could get much done anyhow, but at least I can sympathize with their error and recognize that they never intended ill. When the system has controls built-in to reinforce a chameleon obeying special interests, and effective punishments in place for going against the grain and championing a popular cause that would harm those interests, a chameleon will tend to do what they're built to do: go with the flow.

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 07:54:12 PM
Ah, Seriati, be ever hopeful.  In the meantime, nobody who is not a partisan Republican has yet accused her of committing a crime.  If the FBI somehow fails to grasp the enormity of her perfidy and doesn't arrest her and cast her into the dungeon where Democrats should all live, then you can make claims about how corrupt the whole damn system is.  Because, it's so obvious that she's guilty, Guilty, GUILTY!
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 25, 2016, 08:35:28 PM
Al says : "In the meantime, nobody who is not a partisan Republican has yet accused her of committing a crime"

Translation; if anyone accused Hillary of a crime, Al will call them a "partisan Republican."

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 25, 2016, 08:45:29 PM
Al says : "In the meantime, nobody who is not a partisan Republican has yet accused her of committing a crime"

Translation; if anyone accused Hillary of a crime, Al will call them a "partisan Republican."
Is that your way of saying you can't find one?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on January 26, 2016, 03:42:26 AM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/by-all-means-democrats-make-slavery-reparations-into-a-campaign-issue/
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 26, 2016, 06:49:45 AM
Ugh, and no offense to my dark-toned friends, but that ship sailed a long time ago.  The sad fact of the ongoing endemic racism in this country, not just in the south but differently and more severely in northern urban areas, has absorbed huge amounts of money and attention.  Money is not what's needed and has no effect without changes to society at large; we have to contribute (i.e., sacrifice) culture to the purpose.  BTW, here's how an Australian with aboriginal heritage addressed the problem of racism (https://youtu.be/uEOssW1rw0I) in his country.  It's more than elegant in its raw appeal to his countrymen's humanity.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Greg Davidson on January 26, 2016, 10:30:40 AM
Let me summarize a half dozen comments I have on the last few days of posting:

If you make up one set of standards for judging Democrats and another for judging Republicans, you are just lying to yourself.

I was thinking back to the 2000 election, and despite many significant improvements in living conditions (we had a budget surplus, growing  economy, peace in the world), and for some reason that didn't quite count. So what exactly are the rules that you would like to follow not only in 2016, but 2020 and 2024?

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on January 26, 2016, 10:56:15 AM

If President Obama deserves no credit for the improvement in the economy, neither does President Reagan.

Funny enough from what I've read it improved despite Reagan, not because of him. From when he came into office until 1982 or something (I forget the dates) they Fed Reserve board was employing a particular method of controlling the recession, which was failing and was also in alignment with what Reagan wanted them to do. If I remember correctly they eventually defied him and changed gears fully and did the thing he was trying to stop them doing - "zooming the economy", as he called it. On principle he was against inflation and he didn't like the idea of them lowering interest rates. Anyhow they did it anyhow and the economy began to recover. Assuming memory serves, they pretty much had to ignore Reagan to get the economy back on track, which I'd hardly call him deserving credit for it. In Obama's case I'm simply not convinced the economy is actually much better at all, which is less about congratulating someone else and more about believing that there's nothing yet to congratulate.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on January 26, 2016, 11:32:19 AM
Quote
If President Obama deserves no credit for the improvement in the economy, neither does President Reagan.
If having a private email server is a crime, then Colin Powell, Bush, Cheney and the rest of that Administration's White House staff should be under similar scrutiny to Hillary Clinton

If Powell or Rice were running for president as Republican nominee, you don't think the issue would be raised?

Not sure Reagan does deserve credit for the economic return.  I have said far worse things about him (eg traitor)than about any other president, but I do give him this: he managed a tax hike on the 1%
that they remember as a "tax Break." LoL.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on January 27, 2016, 10:23:03 AM
Interesting take (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/26/presidential-scorecards-so-far/) on how candidate claims in both parties stack up against the truth.  The best-worst for Dems is Clinton/Sanders vs O'Malley, for GOP Kasich/Paul vs Trump/Carson.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 01, 2016, 12:32:08 AM
Give me your trusted sources that validate your analysis about the 2,000 emails.  When you say "we're closing in", I believe that you are identifying with people who are praying that their wishes will be gratified, not with people who simply want an objective answer, which I and most less partisan observers do.
So lol, final emails released and we are in fact over 2000.  Way to double down prematurely on nonsense.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on March 01, 2016, 06:02:41 AM
Are you sure you want to congratulate yourself on that?  You're probably reading the same NYT article that I read this morning about the final batch of emails from Clinton's server, so I won't link it.

Quote
Among the final 1,723 emails released on Monday were 23 that the department upgraded to “secret,” bringing the total classified as such to 65. Another 2,028 have had portions blocked out, or redacted, because the information is now “confidential.”

I read that as a total of 65 that were retroactively marked classified "secret".  One is in dispute as to whether it should be "top secret".  That makes 66.  "Confidential" is the lowest level of classification, just above "not classified", and means:

Quote
“...could be expected to cause damage” to national security if released without authorization.

That doesn't sound great, but note that category allows for release.  Also note this, which points to poor judgment rather than any kind of crime:

Quote
None of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent. And while the State Department has said that the “upgrades” do not reflect any judgment of their sensitivity at the time, the designations nonetheless suggested that at least some of the information should not have been sent over an unsecured system like hers, officials have said.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 09, 2016, 11:22:35 AM
https://medium.com/@williamreynolds/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-saudis-financed-benghazi-attacks-b471a61b5b2b#.7srhde2nt

Apparently four of Clinton's emails from Blumenthal were leaked to RT previously, and now that her emails have been released 3/4 of them have been shown to be accurate. But the 4th is missing, and it contained highly sensitive information about Benghazi. According to this article, this means one of two things:

Quote
1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton’s private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.

2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically “unclassified” information from his AOL account to Clinton’s official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal’s e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal’s e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

His final thought reflects the thought I had when I began this thread:

Quote
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can’t wait until it’s too late.

If the government really does intend to go through with a formal case against her it would destroy her campaign against Trump. No one current being tried for a crime would be electable. If this is the case I feel like it needs to be made clear ASAP so Clinton can decide whether to salvage this election for the Democrats by conceded the nomination to Sanders. And if they don't intend to do anything to her I think they should probably officially drop the matter and declare her innocent of any wrongdoing so the spectre of this issue can be banished.

I can't guess whether she or Sanders has a better shot against Trump in the general, but if she wins the candidacy and then subsequently has charges pressed against her, it will be too late to swap her out for Sanders, who by then would have lost his momentum after losing the candidacy. If current conditions persist it could be a recipe for a Trump presidency.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 11:55:29 AM
https://medium.com/@williamreynolds/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-saudis-financed-benghazi-attacks-b471a61b5b2b#.7srhde2nt

Apparently four of Clinton's emails from Blumenthal were leaked to RT previously, and now that her emails have been released 3/4 of them have been shown to be accurate. But the 4th is missing, and it contained highly sensitive information about Benghazi. According to this article, this means one of two things:

Quote
1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton’s private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.

2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically “unclassified” information from his AOL account to Clinton’s official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal’s e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal’s e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

His final thought reflects the thought I had when I began this thread:

Quote
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can’t wait until it’s too late.

If the government really does intend to go through with a formal case against her it would destroy her campaign against Trump. No one current being tried for a crime would be electable. If this is the case I feel like it needs to be made clear ASAP so Clinton can decide whether to salvage this election for the Democrats by conceded the nomination to Sanders. And if they don't intend to do anything to her I think they should probably officially drop the matter and declare her innocent of any wrongdoing so the spectre of this issue can be banished.

I can't guess whether she or Sanders has a better shot against Trump in the general, but if she wins the candidacy and then subsequently has charges pressed against her, it will be too late to swap her out for Sanders, who by then would have lost his momentum after losing the candidacy. If current conditions persist it could be a recipe for a Trump presidency.

Obama could just Pardon her.  if Trump is a threat to America, etc, it would arguably be his duty to do so. :)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 09, 2016, 12:12:48 PM
Obama could just Pardon her.  if Trump is a threat to America, etc, it would arguably be his duty to do so. :)

Isn't that irrelevant? No one would elect someone convicted of a crime, no less someone currently on trial, which would no doubt last longer than the election. I don't think you can pre-emptively pardon someone before their guilt is actually determined, can you?

In any case aren't there rules about issuing pardons where doing so is a conflict of interest?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 09, 2016, 12:37:30 PM
Fenring,

I think the link is a little conspiracy theory for me.  It's clear the hacker had access, or he couldn't have produced anything real, no way to prove though whether he added items to spice it up (not saying he did or didn't, just not really provable). 

Isn't that irrelevant? No one would elect someone convicted of a crime, no less someone currently on trial, which would no doubt last longer than the election. I don't think you can pre-emptively pardon someone before their guilt is actually determined, can you?
I don't think this is true, maybe Bernie gets a bump if its soon enough, but if Clinton gets the nomination I honestly think Democrats will vote for her if she is under investigation.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 12:40:20 PM
Obama could just Pardon her.  if Trump is a threat to America, etc, it would arguably be his duty to do so. :)

Isn't that irrelevant? No one would elect someone convicted of a crime, no less someone currently on trial, which would no doubt last longer than the election. I don't think you can pre-emptively pardon someone before their guilt is actually determined, can you?

In any case aren't there rules about issuing pardons where doing so is a conflict of interest?

Billl clinton and Gerald Ford. 'nuff said.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 01:10:13 PM
Quote
o one would elect someone convicted of a crime, no less someone currently on trial, which would no doubt last longer than the election.

If he pardoned her now, there would be no trial therefore no conviction.  If Trump is the clear cut demon that some here depict him as, ans Americans need to be saved from themselves , and if Obama knows Hillary investigations truly have no merit, then that's his duty.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 09, 2016, 01:31:16 PM
...and if Obama knows Hillary investigations truly have no merit, then that's his duty.
How would it be possible for them to have "no merit," there's a clear prima facie case already, and the US has been pretty aggressive on this over time (at least, apparently, when it's not an "important" person involved).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on March 09, 2016, 01:40:48 PM
Quote
If the government really does intend to go through with a formal case against her it would destroy her campaign against Trump. No one current being tried for a crime would be electable. If this is the case I feel like it needs to be made clear ASAP so Clinton can decide whether to salvage this election for the Democrats by conceded the nomination to Sanders. And if they don't intend to do anything to her I think they should probably officially drop the matter and declare her innocent of any wrongdoing so the spectre of this issue can be banished.

I can't guess whether she or Sanders has a better shot against Trump in the general, but if she wins the candidacy and then subsequently has charges pressed against her, it will be too late to swap her out for Sanders, who by then would have lost his momentum after losing the candidacy. If current conditions persist it could be a recipe for a Trump presidency.

I think this was the plan for quite a while now (since the Benghazi-committee investigation is not scheduled to be completed until a month or so before the election), whether there is an actual case against her or not.  Of course, this was planned well before Trump appeared on the scene, so that might complicate matters. :)

Which also complicates the matter on how people will vote.  The Benghazi investigation has been a partisan fishing-expedition from the beginning.  Any complaint against Hillary from the committee will be tainted with that partisanship.  So the question is, will the voters give any weight to such a complaint, regardless of the merit?

That, of course, assumes that the Republicans can swallow the idea of the Trump Presidency--a prospect which could actually cause more damage to the Republican Party than allowing Hillary to win. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-one-thing-worse-for-the-gop-than-a-trump-nomination/)  As FiveThirtyEight said:

Quote
The lessons of history suggest, instead, that significant damage to party reputations is done by unsuccessful presidencies, not unsuccessful presidential candidates. Unsuccessful presidents like Herbert Hoover and Carter shaped their parties’ reputations for decades after (see, for example, attempts to compare Obama to Carter). But Trump’s approach and lack of real party roots probably make him more like an even worse president, Andrew Johnson, whose myopia and racism brought down more than just his party. Republicans stand a smaller chance of electoral loss if they nominate Trump than if he launches a third-party bid. But nominating Trump might be the outcome that should worry party leaders the most. Trump winning the nomination, and then winning the presidency — as unlikely as that may be — probably represents the greatest long-term risk to the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 09, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
The Benghazi investigation has been a partisan fishing-expedition from the beginning.
That's only because the Democrats have refused to do their job and actually investigate one of their own.  Sure the Republicans are playing it for what it's worth, but this is fire not smoke.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 02:20:04 PM
...and if Obama knows Hillary investigations truly have no merit, then that's his duty.
How would it be possible for them to have "no merit," there's a clear prima facie case already, and the US has been pretty aggressive on this over time (at least, apparently, when it's not an "important" person involved).

I didnt say it was possible.  I offered the factuality of Hillarite claims as a hypothetical. 
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on March 09, 2016, 02:26:21 PM
Sorry, Seriati, but it's just been blowing smoke from the beginning. :)

How else can you explain that the emphasis went from the Administration purposefully denying aid to an embassy under attack to the Administration not saying soon enough that is wasn't a tape that set off the attack?  ::)

When you go from a serious, if not murderous, dereliction of duty to a misunderstanding about the cause of an incident, that shows that it wasn't the initial charge that they were truly concerned with.  It was the smear.

So how can anyone trust the verdict of a group of Senators who are primarily looking for something to smear Hillary with, even if it turns out to have basis in fact? ;)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 09, 2016, 02:40:51 PM
I think the link is a little conspiracy theory for me.  It's clear the hacker had access, or he couldn't have produced anything real, no way to prove though whether he added items to spice it up (not saying he did or didn't, just not really provable). 

The conclusions it draws are the same sort of conclusions a conspiracy theory might draw, but in this case I posted it because there are only a few actual possibilities. One is that a hacker successfully hacked Blumenthal's e-mail, truthfully submitted three emails from there to RT and then added in a fictitious one along with them. Another is that all four are legitimate, in which case the article's point is not a conspiracy theory but rather cannot be other than factual. I will submit to you the fourth email might have been a fabrication, but to what end? Does RT give a hoot about some random piece of intelligence about Benghazi after the fact? They don't care about Hillary's FOIA issues either, so why make up such a seemingly innocuous email?

The other issue the article brings up is an apparently absent email from Blumenthal's trove, whose subject heading can be found in the screen shot from Blumenthal's email but which was not present in the emails provided in compliance with FOIA. So again, either this hacker doctored the screen shot with Photoshop just to make up one email subject and leave the others alone, or it's a legit screen shot. Why would a hacker decide to doctor just one email's subject, with something again innocuous and not in itself damning?

To me it seems like the far-fetched conspiracy theory would be to suggest some kind of complicity between Hillary's enemies and this hacker, where they planted one false email and one false email subject with RT just to get her in trouble now. Occam's razor seems to suggest that the emails are legit and that one of them is missing from what has been disclosed to the public.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 10, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Sorry, Seriati, but it's just been blowing smoke from the beginning. :)

How else can you explain that the emphasis went from the Administration purposefully denying aid to an embassy under attack to the Administration not saying soon enough that is wasn't a tape that set off the attack?  ::)
Wayward, I've re-read our thread on the old board more than once.  You should take a trip back down memory lane, cause what you said was never true, at least for what we've been discussing for months.

The issue that is being played up, is the call/no call they made on the rescue, which was always just a judgment call.  There's never been any good reason for it to be as unclear as it is.  Can you tell me what President Obama was doing at the time with confidence?

The real issue has always been the corrupt cover-up.  The needless lies and frame job.  It's just a lie to even try to claim at this point that it was a 'failure to say soon enough that a tape wasn't the cause.'  It was an intentional and deliberate lie from the start to even sell the tape theory.  Like I said, go back and refresh yourself on your own positions on that thread if nothing else.
Quote
When you go from a serious, if not murderous, dereliction of duty to a misunderstanding about the cause of an incident, that shows that it wasn't the initial charge that they were truly concerned with.  It was the smear.
I literally shivered when I read that.  It scares me how willingly people jump down the propaganda rabbit hole and buy into fake versions of the story, even when they watched it unfold real time.
Quote
So how can anyone trust the verdict of a group of Senators who are primarily looking for something to smear Hillary with, even if it turns out to have basis in fact? ;)
No one should ever trust any group of Senators, they're all self serving.  But what does that have to do with it?  The lies Hillary tells, and has been caught in, are criminal, they serve no purpose to the benefit of the country but only protect herself.  There is no rational basis anyone could have to determine that she will act in anyway but in her own blatant self interest without regard for any restriction of law.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on March 10, 2016, 08:28:45 AM
If anyone forged  a fourth email, I'd put money on it being RT. People forget sometimes that that organisation is 100 percent a propaganda outlet for Putin.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 10, 2016, 09:40:49 AM
To be clear, I didn't say it was a forgery, just that the source is too shaky for anyone to take it serious, even with the verification. 
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 10, 2016, 09:49:15 AM
If anyone forged  a fourth email, I'd put money on it being RT. People forget sometimes that that organisation is 100 percent a propaganda outlet for Putin.

Why would Putin (effectively) want to create material that would get Hillary in trouble? Is he a secret Bernie supporter? Near as I can tell Hillary is something of an ally to Russia anyhow (Uranium One incident), so I figure as of a couple of years ago she would be their favorite to be President.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Greg Davidson on March 10, 2016, 10:17:01 AM
Hey, Seriati,

Could you please go back and document every allegation you have repeated regarding Clinton and this whole Benghazi/email line of attack?  Then please quantify the number of those allegations that have been unsubstantiated despite years of investigations. Next, calculate the percentage yield (# substantiated allegations/#unsubstantiated allegations). Finally, tell us why this time the odds will be defied.

As a bonus, calculate the percentage of allegations that Republicans have subsequently acknowledged that were faked.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 10, 2016, 10:43:35 AM
Greg, is it possible that for a given person there can be many accurate allegations against them but none of them stick because the person is untouchable? Not saying you're entirely wrong, but the fact of nothing having been proven against Hillary strikes me as having a potentially humorous read to it if you think of Al Capone or Don Corleone.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on March 10, 2016, 12:29:06 PM
Could you please go back and document every allegation you have repeated regarding Clinton and this whole Benghazi/email line of attack?  Then please quantify the number of those allegations that have been unsubstantiated despite years of investigations. Next, calculate the percentage yield (# substantiated allegations/#unsubstantiated allegations). Finally, tell us why this time the odds will be defied.
I get your outrage at my apparent demand.  But like I said, I've been back over this several times, and I was measured and calm on this topic for almost it's whole length.  There's not a lot there that I was wrong about, virtually nothing that was an "unsubstantiated claim", and even on my speculations time has tended to provide them to be more likely than not what actually occurred.  I'm getting to the point of zero tolerance for this position sliding that's becoming routine, where  even after every one of a poster's original premises has failed there's been no alteration or even moderation of their positions.  In fact on this topic, the claims have become more "confident" as they've been demonstrated to be false and/or unlikely.

There's no longer any reasonable grounds to believe that the administration didn't sell a deliberate but politically convenient lie with respect to what happened in Benghazi.  And the real rub is there doesn't seem to be anything but a few politically bad facts (ie no underlying crimes) behind the reason they did so.  I really don't get, why its so difficult for people to own up to this.
Quote
s a bonus, calculate the percentage of allegations that Republicans have subsequently acknowledged that were faked.
Why?  To my knowledge, I've never even tried to hold anyone accountable for anything other than their words or their cited sources.  Do you feel that I've unfairly demanded askance from you over the opinions of others at some points?   It's not like I agree with everything anyone says, but it's also not like I take the "reported" statements (particularly when you're perusing partisan sites) as somehow representative of an entire group of people. 
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on March 10, 2016, 01:33:40 PM
Quote
Wayward, I've re-read our thread on the old board more than once.  You should take a trip back down memory lane, cause what you said was never true, at least for what we've been discussing for months.

The issue that is being played up, is the call/no call they made on the rescue, which was always just a judgment call.  There's never been any good reason for it to be as unclear as it is.  Can you tell me what President Obama was doing at the time with confidence?

The real issue has always been the corrupt cover-up.  The needless lies and frame job.  It's just a lie to even try to claim at this point that it was a 'failure to say soon enough that a tape wasn't the cause.'  It was an intentional and deliberate lie from the start to even sell the tape theory.  Like I said, go back and refresh yourself on your own positions on that thread if nothing else.

The subject at hand (the one I made the comment on, to which you are responding) is the Benghazi Congressional Committee.

While you state the issue is the call/no call they made on the rescue, I do not find that to be an issue with the committee anymore.  I do not recall any recent questions on available resources, nor accusations that they were held back.  From what I understand, those questions have been asked and answered during the numerous hearings, and are now no longer an issue.

The only issue that I recall the committee has still been investigating (before the e-mails came up) was the announcement of that the tapes were the cause of the attack.  But while your opinion is that it was an intentional and deliberate lie from the start, my opinion is that it was, at worst, a convenient excuse that the Administration adopted because it was the initial cause that the CIA came up with for the attack, one that was later revised and corrected by all involved.  There is documentation for my opinion.  And, ultimately, it had no effect on the actual actions of the Administration or by anyone else that I know of.

While you have the right to your opinion that there was some "corrupt cover-up," it is only an opinion, and hardly fact.  And, in my opinion, it is a completely bogus one.  But the fact that the Benghazi Committee has not uncovered any facts to show that military forces were not properly deployed, which was the serious charge about the event, means to me that they were not serious about uncovering serious allegations from the start, and were far more interested in political scandal, i.e. "blowing smoke."

You may believe certain things about the Benghazi attack.  But we are talking about what the Committee believes.  And, AFAIK, they no longer believe that aid was not deployed in a timely manner.  And the issue about the tapes still comes down to "why didn't the Administration admit the cause wasn't the tapes sooner."  So the only thing I see is a political fishing expedition.  And so, any "conclusions" they come to without substantial evidence is just political smear.  Which I am sure is why they are waiting until just before the election to release their "conclusions."
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: scifibum on March 10, 2016, 01:49:31 PM
Quote
It scares me how willingly people jump down the propaganda rabbit hole and buy into fake versions of the story, even when they watched it unfold real time.

It scares me how you're standing up for the clearly corrupt and partisan politics being played by the Benghazi truthers in office.  The truth has been out for a really long time.  The chips have fallen.  But they are still after the "truth".
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 10, 2016, 01:50:26 PM
my opinion is that it was, at worst, a convenient excuse that the Administration adopted because it was the initial cause that the CIA came up with for the attack, one that was later revised and corrected by all involved.  There is documentation for my opinion.  And, ultimately, it had no effect on the actual actions of the Administration or by anyone else that I know of.

It all depends on whether the story about weapons shipments to Syria is true or not. If it is true it would certainly be motive enough to fabricate stories about the cause of the attack the deflect attention from the real reason. If not then the matter remains a blank. Note that if true this would cast negative light not on the administrations actions following the attack but rather on their actions before it.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2016, 11:41:18 AM
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

This is the most comprehensive and complete analysis I've seen to date on the email scandal, as it not only explains both sides of the issue (for and against Hillary's position) but it also illustrates how the email scandal ties directly into both the Benghazi and the Libya affairs and is relevant in further shedding light on what really happened during those events.

I will warn the reader that this article is tremendously long but I think it's very informative. It also cites statements made by many top experts and officials, lending credence to its points by virtue of the research the author has done to compile it. I will also note that as you get way down towards the end of it, I would recommend simply ignoring the final section (13), as it comprises little more than speculation and the author's personal opinion on the coming election. The entire article is skewed slightly in the view that Hillary is probably guilty of something, but it remains consistent in never jumping to this conclusion nor in omitting all of the mitigating circumstances in Hillary's favor.

What the article did for me was mostly to put some of the disparate facts I already knew into chronological perspective, and to remind me how many different events in the last 7 years are directly tied into the issue now being investigated, from Benghazi to Libya to the Clinton Foundation donation scandal to Sid Blumenthal's emails.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2016, 01:02:13 PM
Fenring,

thanks for the article.  I'm skimming stuff I already knew.  A problem is that he frequently fails to differentiate between stuff sent by Clinton and stuff received by Clinton and whether the stuff sent was in 'open source' (ie did they simply send NYT articles back and forth, or was it stuff that she or her staffers were repeating from secured communications).  For instance the two claimed most secret emails were supposed regarding North Korean missile movements and drone strikes.    If it was only NYT articles being passed back and forth such as -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/world/asia/north-korean-missile-moved-to-coast.html

That is a whole different kettle of fish then stuff that isn't in open source.

Also his attempts at legal analysis are pretty bad.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on March 31, 2016, 01:20:09 PM
And he only referred to Blumenthal as a source for information rather than a recipient. Which makes all the hoopla about him seem rather dubious.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2016, 01:25:04 PM
NobleHunter,

just got to the Blumenthal.  I think this is the strongest argument in his article.

Blumenthal is stating the stuff is 'sensitive' in the emails he is sending, and then she is retransmitting the information.
Also those emails that contained these statements about 'sensitive' stuff weren't included in what was provided to the government, so arguably she knew that it would show wrong doing on her behalf.

The single piece of evidence that might be enough to bring charges on its own is the forwarding of an email that apparently contained a CIA operatives name.

I think she could also likely be nailed on deleting evidence.

Most of the other arguements are pretty questionable...
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on March 31, 2016, 01:37:27 PM
But if Blumenthal is the source of information, and he's sending it from AOL (of all things), it seems odd to consider it born classified.. Not unless something the government doesn't even know is supposed to be classified.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2016, 01:40:46 PM
What I want to know is how one doesn't turn over 'portions of 6 other' emails?

Does that mean the emails were edited before being printed and turned over?

Hmm and at least some of the deleted emails were after she was no long Secretary of State.  Which means there might not have been any legal requirement to turn them over.  Ah well, we shall see what we shall see.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2016, 02:56:03 PM
LR, I agree that from a lawyerly perspective the article shouldn't be read as a legal analysis, although obviously any quotes of actual lawyers on the subject should be taken for what they're worth. I was pleased at least that the author admitted as such and didn't have any pretensions of having done anything other than compile a research project to the best of his abilities.

As far as the "sent by Clinton" versus "received by Clinton" angle, I actually think that type of argument has largely been a red herring all along. If Hillary's entire email record was on her private server, and then subsequently doubled on the new Platt server, then that would violate the law in terms of classified material being improperly stored. It wouldn't matter who sent or received it; the point is that it existed on servers maintained by people without a security clearance. It's true that if Hillary had also sent classified sensitive material that would be illegal too, but the idea that that issue is what this all hinges on is not true and is, I think, often used as a distraction from the other points made in the article.

One thing about the Blumenthal angle that the article alludes to but doesn't quite say, is - what is a private citizen employed by the Clinton Foundation doing with highly sensitive information that even the intelligence agencies potentially don't have access to? Is this guy a spy, or does he work with some private spy network? Wasn't it the Secretary of State's due diligence to see to it that anyone with access to high-level security information has the requisite clearance for that sort of sensitive information? To me it doesn't matter whether he sent her emails or she sent him emails; the relevant point is that she was exchanging crazy information with some guy working for her personal non-profit. What the heck is up with that. And having read many of his emails, I can say for sure that they contained very sensitive information that was absolutely directly related to national security.

About his emails dated past Feb. 1, 2015, don't forget that the Benghazi hearings demanded all of Hillary's emails related to Benghazi, not just those within specified dates. Although it's true that they may have expected that the emails in question would be from her time as Secretary of State since...well, that would be normal, they may not have quite known that she was receiving sensitive intelligence on an ongoing basis and that it had nothing to do with her position as SecState as such. In fact, if anything might this not bring up the possibility that she herself was no longer cleared to be receiving such information past Feb. 1?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on March 31, 2016, 03:19:45 PM
I still keep wondering if it was legal to send classified information over e-mail at all.

Considering the route such e-mails take (through various other servers, IIRC), I would think then any classified information would be unsecure if sent to any e-mail address.

Does anyone know?

Because if so, then Hillary using her own server is not an issue, but rather that it was sent at all.  It would be like complaining that someone sent explosives in a small passenger jet when it would be more secure on a jumbo jet, when it's illegal to put explosives on any passenger aircraft. ;)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on March 31, 2016, 03:26:39 PM
Given the State Department got hacked like crazy, a .gov address doesn't seem to have been significantly more secure than Clinton's email.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2016, 03:34:52 PM
Given the State Department got hacked like crazy, a .gov address doesn't seem to have been significantly more secure than Clinton's email.

The funny thing about bureaucracy is that its rules don't always actually do anything. But it can still be a crime to disobey them. If someone follows correct protocol and they get hacked anyhow, that's a classic bureaucratic "hey it wasn't anyone's fault" defence to which there is really nothing to say. The moment someone does something unauthorized and the same result happens that is when a bureaucracy jumps all over them and says "See! That's what happens when you breach protocol." So from that standpoint the security of email may in itself be a foolish issue to examine, but the fact remains that Hillary did do so in a way she wasn't supposed to, and rules are rules even if they aren't always that helpful.

It doesn't help Hillary's case here that she, personally, had her private server hacked multiple times. Maybe when the official State Dept. servers are hacked they have specific procedures they can follow up with, such as tracking the hacker, initiating countermeasures, sending agents to do their thing, whatever else. When Hillary's private server was hacked, did all of this apparatus get activated in the same way? These are hard questions for us groundlings to answer.

In principle it does sound from how officials have spoken about it that classified material is best viewed as hard copy and never sent through unsecured media such as email. Hillary even claimed this is exactly what she did, but obviously her word on this is contradicted by the contents of emails that many of us have read that obviously contain messed up stuff. The Blumenthal emails strike me as particularly egregious in this respect, especially since neither he nor she were secure in their communications at either end. And these emails definitely don't satisfy the FOIA requirements since neither of them was using a .gov address.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2016, 08:43:46 PM
Fenring,

it sounded like Blumenthal had his own sources via his contracts.  Unfortunately, probably lots of contractors in the Middle East have contacts where they are getting classified information for competitive purposes.

Her communications with Blumenthal could be construed as 'personal', but probably would fall under the 'pertaining to Behghazzi'.

Wayward,

it isn't legal to 'knowingly' send classified info via anything but secured systems.  Which is why it matters if she knew (or should have known) the material was classified.  The identity of a CIA agent should be pretty cut and dried.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2016, 09:53:55 PM
Her communications with Blumenthal could be construed as 'personal', but probably would fall under the 'pertaining to Behghazzi'.

This type is question is right at the core of the problem of her using her personal server the way she did. She not only combined her personal and business emails on the same account, but in practice had completely entwined her "personal" affairs and those of state. There was effectively no difference between Hillary the SecState, Hillary the officer of the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary the power broker. She used her 'private' channels in her capacity as SecState, her knowledge and position as SecState to operate the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Foundation itself to act as a slush fund for both (and for her subsequent campaign). This is why it's so pernicious that she deleted her "personal" emails prior to handing everything over. Other than emails involving her lovers or whatever much of the rest was probably some quagmire composite of personal and business, involving intelligence and planning but not strictly speaking through her capacity as SecState. For someone like her whose life IS business, personal emails won't likely be a bunch of movie banter and trending jokes. Disentangling her various positions would likely have been impossible as it is for an impartial party to adjudicate, and let's just say I don't think must trust should be accorded to any person who takes it upon themselves to do that task for themselves with no oversight. Which of course brings us back full circle.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2016, 04:52:31 PM
Wayward,

it isn't legal to 'knowingly' send classified info via anything but secured systems.  Which is why it matters if she knew (or should have known) the material was classified.  The identity of a CIA agent should be pretty cut and dried.

This is true.  My point was, though, that it has nothing to do with her using her own server for e-mails vs using the government server, if the government server was not considered secured for classified material, either.

Either way, if she did send classified materials in an unsecured method, she did break the law.  Then the question becomes how severe was this crime.  Was it closer to a "parking violation" severity or a "selling atomic secrets to the Russians" severity?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on April 01, 2016, 10:55:31 PM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

Article arguing that Sanders is a stronger candidate in every possible way.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Pete at Home on April 02, 2016, 05:09:31 AM
If anyone forged  a fourth email, I'd put money on it being RT. People forget sometimes that that organisation is 100 percent a propaganda outlet for Putin.

Why would Putin (effectively) want to create material that would get Hillary in trouble? Is he a secret Bernie supporter?

Putin is OPENLY a TRUMP supporter.  And Putin has reason to hate the Clintons, as you know, because Kosovo is his Bete Noire.  Not that I'd buy into the conspiracy, though.  Forged emails and scandals are not Putin's MO.  We're talking about a man's man who likes to take his enemies out with radiologically dirty devices.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 02, 2016, 08:03:44 AM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-time-for-hillary-clin_b_9555422.html

Article arguing that Sanders is a stronger candidate in every possible way.
If that article were more focused on fact instead of polls, anecdotes and speculation, it might be worth paying more attention to.  The author's slant is totally obvious, as for instance arguing that she should drop out because polls show that Sanders would beat Trump by a wider margin than she would and that the Clinton endorsement in the Rolling Stones doesn't mention the email investigation.  Hard-hitting stuff.  I mean, really hard-hitting. 

As for the author, he is avowed Sanders supporter, even to the extent that elsewhere he says people should write-in vote for Sanders if Clinton is the nominee.  So much for his scare-face argument that Trump might win the election if she is on the ballot instead of Sanders.  Stopping Trump is not his real mission.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2016, 11:54:11 AM
If that article were more focused on fact instead of polls, anecdotes and speculation, it might be worth paying more attention to.

That's funny, I thought anecdotes and polls were facts. They are not ironclad arguments, but they certainly seem to be factual to me. People took a poll and gave their answer. It's a good enough fact for campaigns to base their strategy around. Haven't you on numerous occasions mentioned how you think Hillary has a better chance against Trump than Sanders has? So why the sour face when an article says the opposite?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 02, 2016, 01:52:06 PM
Quote
That's funny, I thought anecdotes and polls were facts.
So are opinions, since once stated they are out there.  There's an anecdote for every possible argument, which is why they aren't thought to be particularly persuasive when trying to convince people.  As for polls, don't forget that some published on election day in 2012 "showed" that Romney was going to win in a landslide.  That's also a fact.  Some said otherwise, which is another fact.  It's also a fact that I said that Trump is unfit to be President, but whether it's a fact because I said it or because what I said is a fact is up to you to decide.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 02, 2016, 02:12:11 PM
So are opinions, since once stated they are out there.  There's an anecdote for every possible argument, which is why they aren't thought to be particularly persuasive when trying to convince people.  As for polls, don't forget that some published on election day in 2012 "showed" that Romney was going to win in a landslide.  That's also a fact.  Some said otherwise, which is another fact.  It's also a fact that I said that Trump is unfit to be President, but whether it's a fact because I said it or because what I said is a fact is up to you to decide.

Quite right, so what you're really saying is that you didn't find the article persuasive, which is completely fair. It's another thing entirely to claim is 'should stick to facts' when discussing who it thought was the better candidate. What sorts of facts other than polls, stats and anecdotes could possibly serve to show such a thing at this point in time? A crystal ball? Knowledge of future events would be more persuasive to be sure, but shy of that conjecture based on limited information is all we have.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: LetterRip on April 02, 2016, 05:19:35 PM
Looks like according the the CIA the name wasn't classified, and the government had not redacted the name, but rather Gowdy had to make it appear that she had done a violation.

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/cia-debunks-gowdy-s-allegation-that-clinton-email-contained-classified-cia
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 02, 2016, 05:37:59 PM
So are opinions, since once stated they are out there.  There's an anecdote for every possible argument, which is why they aren't thought to be particularly persuasive when trying to convince people.  As for polls, don't forget that some published on election day in 2012 "showed" that Romney was going to win in a landslide.  That's also a fact.  Some said otherwise, which is another fact.  It's also a fact that I said that Trump is unfit to be President, but whether it's a fact because I said it or because what I said is a fact is up to you to decide.

Quite right, so what you're really saying is that you didn't find the article persuasive, which is completely fair. It's another thing entirely to claim is 'should stick to facts' when discussing who it thought was the better candidate. What sorts of facts other than polls, stats and anecdotes could possibly serve to show such a thing at this point in time? A crystal ball? Knowledge of future events would be more persuasive to be sure, but shy of that conjecture based on limited information is all we have.
Fenring, I get the feeling that you think that article somehow adds "factual weight" to the proposition that Clinton should not run and likely will be arrested for committing a crime.  I find it to be nothing more than partisan spin by an ardent Sanders supporter.  Since you've made it clear that you are already leaning that way, I can understand why what the article says helps to further confirm your hope for Bernie's chances.

But if you step back a few feet and really examine his "facts", many if not most of them themselves lean in that direction.  You're entitled to both your own facts and opinions, but you should be more confident that the facts have value.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 03, 2016, 08:12:16 AM
Quote
Haven't you on numerous occasions mentioned how you think Hillary has a better chance against Trump than Sanders has?
Either Clinton or Sanders would beat Trump or Cruz.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 11, 2016, 07:29:25 PM
To bring the polls up-to-date:

Quote
Of the nine surveys released in the last month, Cruz beats Clinton in only one — a Fox News poll where Cruz scores 3 percentage points higher than Clinton. The two were tied in the latest McClatchy/Marist poll and in a CNN/ORC poll. The margins of error were +/- 3 percentage points.

In the other six polls, Clinton beat Cruz. In four of those surveys, Clinton's margin exceeded the margin of error.

Cruz was looking stronger against Clinton in February, where he tied or beat Clinton in five of six surveys. But in only one of those polls was Cruz's margin greater than the margin of error.

If you use the most recent results from the various polling organizations since Feb. 4, Cruz wins in two, ties in two and loses in seven.

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 11, 2016, 07:43:41 PM
Oops, forgot to add the link to the source of the quote below. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/11/ted-cruz/national-surveys-show-ted-cruz-isnt-beating-hillar/)  :-[

Oh, and about the emails, a little PolitiFact article (http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/apr/08/Jack_Graham/jack-graham-says-its-clearhillary-clinton-violated/):

Quote
An expert in government secrecy says nothing revealed to date supports Senate candidate Jack Graham’s assertion that "it’s clear" Clinton violated national security laws.

"It is not at all clear that Clinton violated any national security law, and Mr. Graham did not indicate what law he had in mind," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

"The laws that govern classified information are a patchwork of statutes dating back as long as a century ago (before today's classification system even existed), and their application is often unclear," Aftergood said. "But most of those statutes require criminal intent in order to commit a violation. There is no known evidence of criminal intent on Clinton's part. If Mr. Graham has such evidence, he should immediately provide it to law enforcement officials..."

Hypothetically, the evidence may someday support Graham’s accusation against Clinton. But at this time, there is no clear evidence that Clinton has broken the law. No one has been charged with a crime in this case -- let alone convicted.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 11, 2016, 07:58:14 PM
Hypothetically, the evidence may someday support Graham’s accusation against Clinton. But at this time, there is no clear evidence that Clinton has broken the law. No one has been charged with a crime in this case -- let alone convicted.


That's funny, since the public doesn't know what evidence actually exists or not, but is only aware of what hits the news. Whatever 'expert' said this probably doesn't know much of relevance either unless he's specifically taking part in the FBI investigation or for some reason has the inside scoop on things. If plans are being made to indict behind closed doors, and if interviews of key witnesses are taking place at the moment (which we know for certain they are) then whatever evidence they've decided is relevant would be released to Clinton's council at the time when an indictment is announced and not one moment before. Until then all we have is speculation on both sides, with the result people would like to see being put forward in most cases more so than facts (this is true of both sides).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 12, 2016, 12:26:12 PM
That seems to me that is exactly what Steven Aftergood was saying--no evidence has been put forward at this time that would lead one to the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton had committed a crime, so no conclusions can be drawn.  But the proviso "at this time" indicates that the situation could change with more information.

So while it very well could be that Hillary might be indicted and might possibly be found guilty of a crime, it is also quite possible that nothing will come of it.  And considering how much smoke (aka blatant lies) the Right has blow in the past (Foster's "murder," Birtherism, etc., etc.), I'm not putting any bets on this latest scandal.

Will I be shocked if Clinton is indicted, or even convicted?  No, not really.  Would I be outraged if she isn't indicted or convicted?  Hardly.  Not even surprised at this point.  I trust the Right just about as far as I can throw them--and I have pretty weak arms. :)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 12, 2016, 01:01:37 PM
That seems to me that is exactly what Steven Aftergood was saying--no evidence has been put forward at this time that would lead one to the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton had committed a crime, so no conclusions can be drawn.  But the proviso "at this time" indicates that the situation could change with more information.

Just note that there is a very big difference between these quotes of his:

"There is no known evidence of criminal intent on Clinton's part"
"at this time, there is no clear evidence that Clinton has broken the law"

and between saying what he seems to indicate in an earlier paragraph:

"nothing revealed to date supports Senate candidate Jack Graham’s assertion that "it’s clear" Clinton violated national security laws."

It seems clear that his position is in line with the former two quotes, namely that there is not enough evidence so far, notwithstanding his admission that he can only comment on what has been officially released to the public. But the fact of certain evidence not being disclosed publicly has nothing to do with whether such evidence exists or not. By being a tricky writer and saying "Hypothetically, the evidence may someday support Graham’s accusation against Clinton" he can get away with simultaneously sounding impartial on the subject and yet appearing to also state that there is no case against her as of now, which he cannot actually know unless he's in on the investigation.

And this is only his personal opinion on the facts released, about which other experts say the opposite anyhow. My position on this is still that we'll have to wait and see what comes of the investigation, and I still believe that it represents a serious danger for Hillary's run. Luckily since Bernie is doing well even if something happens to her that makes her withdraw at least the Democrats can field someone who can win, so it's not that bad a situation any more.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 14, 2016, 05:48:29 PM
Quote
My position on this is still that we'll have to wait and see what comes of the investigation, and I still believe that it represents a serious danger for Hillary's run.
It only represents a serious danger to her run if if turns out that there is some serious danger in what they find.  In the meantime, everyone (who cares) is excited about the possibilities, because it could be really, really bad.  Or not.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on April 17, 2016, 06:35:38 PM
http://www.mediaite.com/online/debunking-the-progressive-who-gets-things-done-myth/
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 17, 2016, 07:41:57 PM
There are a lot of ways to slice the pie.  This site (https://www.congress.gov/search?q={%22source%22%3A%22members%22}) details every sponsored and co-sponsored bill be all members of Congress.  Make of it what you will.  Then there is this tepid assessment (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/27/bernie-sanders-record-in-congress-shows-little-soc/?page=all) of Bernie's record of accomplishment based on his principles.

We can do this all day.  Both were somewhat middling in their accomplishments, but since neither chaired committees their names don't appear on the vast majority of bills they supported or voted for.  Cruz is at the bottom of every list with 0 bills passed into law that he sponsored, but is tied with Trump :).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 18, 2016, 02:10:12 PM
Regarding Bernie supporters who won't vote for Hillary, and vice versa, we finally have some data. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642)

Apparently, 25 percent of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, while 69 percent say they will.

OTOH, 14 percent of Hillary supporters won't vote for Bernie, while 79 percent say they will.

One thing I wonder is how likely those surveyed are to vote at all.  It's easy to say you won't vote for the other candidate if you probably won't vote at all. :)  Although one would expect enthusiastic supporters to at least vote for their candidate.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 18, 2016, 04:34:03 PM
Apparently, 25 percent of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, while 69 percent say they will.

OTOH, 14 percent of Hillary supporters won't vote for Bernie, while 79 percent say they will.

One thing to remember is that while supporters of both are likely either regular Democrat voters or independents, support doesn't always involve enthusiasm. In a Cruz vs Hillary election cycle, for instance, many Republicans would likely vote from Cruz while despising him, which makes their vote effectively a vote against Hillary more than anything else. In the primaries this is happening to, as I'm quite certain that while Bernie's supporters seem to fervently care about his campaign, a great many of them are probably also voting for him as votes against Hillary rather than specifically for his policies. As such, some of them vehemently against Hillary won't switch to supporting Hillary even if she takes the nomination. Contrariwise, Hillary's supporters probably believe she is a better candidate, has more chance of winning the general, has more experience in power circles and the international stage, and so forth, but don't particularly hate Bernie in any sense. If he were to take the candidacy many of them would no doubt be ok voting him even though they didn't think he was the best choice.

Things are even more divisive between the Cruz and Trump camps. I really wonder how many of each of their supporters would want to vote for the other should their candidate lose in the primaries. In the end hard line D's and R's will probably vote for whichever candidate runs in the general, but of the swing voters I really couldn't guess what they'd do in the cases of Cruz-Clinton, Cruz-Sanders, Trump-Sanders, or Trump-Clinton.

By the way while I'd just like to mention as a reminder that I began the threat not overtly as an anti-Hillary thread but actually as an anti-Jeb Bush thread. I felt Hillary might sabotage the election for the Democrats and hand him the election. Perhaps that theme could still be relevant for anyone deeply concerned about Cruz or Trump winning, but I'm not as concerned about them as I was about Bush specifically. I've since become a Bernie supporter but actually that makes this thread have less relevance since I don't think anything that happens to Hillary will sabotage the election for the Democrats any more.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Greg Davidson on April 18, 2016, 11:16:22 PM
The mutual favorability of Sanders supporters for Clinton (and Clinton supporters for Sanders) is higher than it was between supporters of Obama and Clinton in 2008.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 21, 2016, 05:48:45 PM
While 25 percent of Bernie's supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, it has been worse in the past. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/21/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-history-shows-win-bernie-sanders/)

Quote
We found two polls taken in June 2008 that asked primary supporters of Clinton who they would support with Obama as the Democratic nominee...In both polls, roughly 60 percent of former Clinton supporters backed Obama, while 40 percent didn’t, either through a vote for Republican nominee John McCain or a vow to do something other than voting for Obama.

This means Clinton can take heart that she is already doing about 10 points better securing the backing of Sanders voters than Obama was doing securing support from Clinton backers...

Subsequent polling data showed Obama did eventually win the support of Clinton backers. By August 2008, polls showed that Obama was winning 70 percent to 76 percent of Clinton supporters. And of course, Obama went on to win in November.

If Trump turns out to be the Republican nominee (which it is looking more and more likely), I don't Hillary has anything to worry about losing Bernie supporters. :)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 21, 2016, 08:33:01 PM
It's a tad surprising to me that Hillary supporters were less willing (so it is said) to support Obama than Sanders are to back her this time around.  Hillary has never represented an emotional cause or clear principle that would rally people around her.  I'd have thought Palin would have scared the bejeezus of them enough that they would sign up with full commitment for Obama just to prevent the awfulness of her.  I guess not...
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: scifibum on April 21, 2016, 10:35:09 PM
She does represent a milestone for feminism. I think Warren might have given her a bigger challenge than Bernie did.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 22, 2016, 02:53:45 AM
She does represent a milestone for feminism. I think Warren might have given her a bigger challenge than Bernie did.

What has Hillary ever really done for feminism?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on April 22, 2016, 03:00:32 AM
Even if you can never point at anything concrete, the first female president is one heck of a symbol, and something that is very imporrant for those willing to vote vagina over policy.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 22, 2016, 07:05:59 AM
Is the corollary that voting for Trump is voting for his ("no problem there, I guarantee you") penis?  More likely, since he's not very long on policies.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 22, 2016, 11:38:17 AM
Even if you can never point at anything concrete, the first female president is one heck of a symbol, and something that is very imporrant for those willing to vote vagina over policy.

At the same time, (and this is arguably something of an issue with Obama as well, but that's done with), is that so long as society is not Color-blind, or "gender-blind" as it is, the "First _____" is going to serve as a role model for many who identify with ____. Potentially for many generations to come. And honestly, I don't think Hillary is someone I want to see obtain that kind of placement in the history books. I'm not sure how most rational people would want to position Hillary in such a way as to be viewed as a role model for their Great-great grandchildren.

So when it comes to voting for "a symbol" I think Hillary is entirely the wrong message. Not that Trump would be better, but as a white male, he'd simply go down in the history books as yet another in a long list of terrible presidents.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 22, 2016, 12:45:43 PM
If you are electing a symbol, then there are probably many better candidates, except none of them *are* candidates.  Are you saying that in some ways you would rather have Trump elected and be a terrible President than Hillary elected and be less than ideal?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on April 22, 2016, 01:53:49 PM
If you are electing a symbol, then there are probably many better candidates, except none of them *are* candidates.  Are you saying that in some ways you would rather have Trump elected and be a terrible President than Hillary elected and be less than ideal?
If those were the real options (on a look back basis) of course.  However, on a look forward basis, it appears more likely that we have a complete unknown with Trump, not based on him and his attitudes, but rather based on his actual effectiveness.  He wouldn't enjoy any of the protections that President Obama gets on abuses of executive authority (because NEITHER party will act on a partisan basis to protect him).

Versus.

A completely dishonest and self centered President, who will most likely continue with the Autocratic traditions of the current President and maintain or exceed the overall corruption levels that have been established.  Pretty much a guaranty that we'll all be losers whether she's "effective" or not.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: DJQuag on April 22, 2016, 04:50:24 PM
Is the corollary that voting for Trump is voting for his ("no problem there, I guarantee you") penis?  More likely, since he's not very long on policies.

Well, since Trump wouldn't be the first male president,  obviously not.

There are undeniably voters out there who will vote for Clinton whilst overlooking flaws that they otherwise wouldn't,  because she's a woman. The same way some people voted for Obama because he was black.

I'm not judging, mind you,  just pointing it out.  They want to be able to say to their daughters with a straight face that they really can be President. Nothing wrong with that. Also nothing wrong with saying that they're ignoring some vile stuff in order to do it.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 22, 2016, 06:57:52 PM
Just as you might say that some people will vote for the vagina, it's also clear that others won't vote for her because of that.  When you identify a defining characteristic it's easy to ignore that there is likely a more or less equal opposite.  We'll never know how many votes Obama delivered to McCain because he was black and how many more he might have gotten had he been white.  One reason I think Cruz wouldn't win the election is because his overt religiosity repels as many people as it attracts.  Even Jesus would have to contend with that, were he to make another appearance.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 23, 2016, 11:59:06 AM
If you are electing a symbol, then there are probably many better candidates, except none of them *are* candidates.  Are you saying that in some ways you would rather have Trump elected and be a terrible President than Hillary elected and be less than ideal?
If those were the real options (on a look back basis) of course.  However, on a look forward basis, it appears more likely that we have a complete unknown with Trump, not based on him and his attitudes, but rather based on his actual effectiveness.  He wouldn't enjoy any of the protections that President Obama gets on abuses of executive authority (because NEITHER party will act on a partisan basis to protect him).

Versus.

A completely dishonest and self centered President, who will most likely continue with the Autocratic traditions of the current President and maintain or exceed the overall corruption levels that have been established.  Pretty much a guaranty that we'll all be losers whether she's "effective" or not.

This has pretty much been my conclusion for a little over a month now. If Trump sticks to his guns through the general election and manages to obtain the Presidency and attempts to govern that way, neither party is likely to support him in Congress.

That means his ability to pass new legislation is near non-existent. Likewise due to not having any major party backing him in Congress. Nobody will be particularly interested in protecting him from the consequences of overstepping his Executive Authority as dictated under the Constitution. You know, that piece of paper Congress loves to ignore in the interest of getting their own party getting a turn at the apple.

Which in turn means a lot of the "Executive Actions" that Obama has been so prone to undertake won't be likely to fly very far for Trump. Congress won't stand for him doing that, and the Media Establishment is likewise far more likely to side with Congress than they are to side with Trump.

But the above supposes that Trump doesn't try to change his stripes partway through all of this. Which could be a big if, as he does actually remain largely an unknown when it comes to the details. I still suspect Trump's run was a (recurring) publicity stunt that has gotten out of hand, and that some of his more outrageous statements were him practically begging voters to vote for anyone but him. (Admitting it was a publicity stunt being a no-go because that exposes him to a legal grey area(with the IRS, at the very least), among other issues--like seriously pissed off (and armed) voters who did support his run who would then possibly make it their mission in life to destroy him and/or his business interests)

Trump having potentially run as a parody candidate aside. There is going to be a lot of dark appeal for a lot of voters with Constitutionalist leanings to vote for Trump in the General Elections because his winning the Presidency is the most surefire way to give Congress a strong incentive to "rediscover" their powers granted to them under the Constitution. Those powers would then be used to roll back a lot of executive powers currently exercised by the President and put them back under the thumb of Congress. Trump being a white male works doubly so for that objective, as race and gender are not issues he can bring forward as reasons why they're obstructing his agenda.

Trump may be a completely terrible candidate, but because he is a completely terrible candidate, he paradoxically becomes a great candidate choice for fixing a lot of long standing issues. Not because of anything he wants to do, but because of what the system("the establishment") will do in response to his being elected. The "burn it down" crowd, when it comes to Trump does have members with some rationale basis for why they're pursuing that option.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 23, 2016, 03:53:38 PM
The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.  They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.

While Congress may come together to strip the White House of it's executive power, that will leave no one with power anymore.  Congress will not be able to agree upon anything, so nothing will get done.

Expect an non-existent government for four years if your scenario comes to pass. :(
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 23, 2016, 04:40:55 PM
Why wouldn't you expect Trump to use his exaggerated sense of entitlement to bend Executive actions to his fancy?  He can't build the wall, but he can kill trade agreements, block all sorts of Executive programs and send troops to kill the families of people he thinks are not nice, not nice.  Let's see how Congress would try and stop him...
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on April 23, 2016, 04:46:16 PM
Why wouldn't you expect Trump to use his exaggerated sense of entitlement to bend Executive actions to his fancy?  He can't build the wall, but he can kill trade agreements, block all sorts of Executive programs and send troops to kill the families of people he thinks are not nice, not nice.  Let's see how Congress would try and stop him...
Reminds of David Weber's books. Constitutional crises are pretty much never a good way to solve a problem.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 24, 2016, 08:38:37 PM
The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.  They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.

There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.

Negotiating with someone who comes to table with a my way or the highway position in fact, regardless of rhetoric claiming otherwise, is someone that will be impossible to compromise with. Not because you're unwilling to compromise, but because they won't. It takes two to tango, and Obama knows that when it comes to spin and rhetoric, his side will win almost every time. As such, he has no reason to compromise, particularly since it has worked for so long and the Republicans have essentially given up.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 24, 2016, 08:50:30 PM
While Congress may come together to strip the White House of it's executive power, that will leave no one with power anymore.  Congress will not be able to agree upon anything, so nothing will get done.

Expect an non-existent government for four years if your scenario comes to pass. :(

Uh, just because Washington D.C. is gridlocked doesn't mean states can't act on their own over a multitude of matters. Well, until or unless the Federal Government tells them not to, but lately that's been the domain of Democrats rather than Republicans. Particularly as Republicans have been wanting to devolve a lot of Federal powers back to the states. In fact historically that is how most things were done, so you're not exactly creating a convincing (rational) nightmare scenario under a Trump Presidency. But then, nightmares rarely tend to be rational.

The worst case scenario is on the foreign policy front, but after the combined train wrecks of Bush + Obama (either one by themselves wouldn't be bad, but together, they're absolutely terrible) I doubt Trump could screw it up much more unless he deliberately tries to do so. Primary Candidate Trump has self-professed to not having any advisors on foreign policy. President Trump is likely to act more like CEO Trump and take full advantage of specialist knowledge on that front. (Of course, WHICH ones is a valid question)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 25, 2016, 04:17:03 AM
Quote
There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.
Many of your comments show a generally objective viewpoint, but I hope you can understand when I say that you betray a blind spot here.  In his abilities to maneuver around and manipulate Congress Obama is a rank amateur compared to Clinton (personally) or Bush II (his minions).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 25, 2016, 09:08:05 AM
Quote
The worst case scenario is on the foreign policy front, but after the combined train wrecks of Bush + Obama (either one by themselves wouldn't be bad, but together, they're absolutely terrible) I doubt Trump could screw it up much more unless he deliberately tries to do so. Primary Candidate Trump has self-professed to not having any advisors on foreign policy. President Trump is likely to act more like CEO Trump and take full advantage of specialist knowledge on that front. (Of course, WHICH ones is a valid question)

I wouldn't connect Bush and Obama into a continuum of a slow motion train wreck.  Bush effectively destroyed Iraq from almost every perspective of cultural harmony and government effectiveness.  Obama inherited that mess and didn't turn it around.  To use your metaphor, I'd say instead that he tried to get out of the way of the train, but it didn't help.  As for your fond hope that Trump will suddenly start acting rationally, there's scant evidence to show that he even knows how to do that.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2016, 11:02:11 AM
The problem with your scenario, TheDaemon, is that the reason Obama used Executive Action so frequently is because Congress is pretty much dysfunctional.  They have done nothing major in the past 6 years except for blocking any initiatives from the White House.

There is more than a bit of a disconnect here. Part of the problem with negotiating with the Obama Administration is that they're often very disingenuous negotiators. The Democrats in general are leagues ahead of Republicans in General, and the Obama Administration is in a league unto itself in terms of spin control.

Negotiating with someone who comes to table with a my way or the highway position in fact, regardless of rhetoric claiming otherwise, is someone that will be impossible to compromise with. Not because you're unwilling to compromise, but because they won't. It takes two to tango, and Obama knows that when it comes to spin and rhetoric, his side will win almost every time. As such, he has no reason to compromise, particularly since it has worked for so long and the Republicans have essentially given up.

You are absolutely correct here, Daemon, except you have the players mixed-up.  And we have clear evidence of that.

Twice Speaker of the House Boehner made deals with the White House.  Twice these deals were rejected by the House because the deals were not good enough for them.  And twice the House blamed the White House for not compromising.

Think about that for a second.  Two opponents come to a deal.  Probably neither of them like the deal that much, but it is something they both can agree upon, if only by holding their noses, because it was best compromise they could come up with.  Then one side walks away because the deal isn't good enough.

If this was a real estate deal, which side is the one who is unwilling to compromise?  Which side is saying "my way or the highway?"

It was the side who walked away from the deal.

You are correct, Daemon.  You can't negotiate with someone who come to the table with a "my way or the highway" attitude.  And that someone, at least twice and doubtlessly more times, is the Republican House.

The fact that some members blamed the White House only puts icing on the cake, because they didn't even have the guts to admit that they were the ones who were obstructing a compromise.  But, really, what other conclusion can you come to?  If you don't like the deal, you don't like the deal.  But if you then blame the other side for not compromising after they have compromised, then that is pure, unadulterated spin the stinkiest kind.  Or simple self-delusion.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on April 25, 2016, 11:14:18 AM
Quote
Uh, just because Washington D.C. is gridlocked doesn't mean states can't act on their own over a multitude of matters. Well, until or unless the Federal Government tells them not to, but lately that's been the domain of Democrats rather than Republicans. Particularly as Republicans have been wanting to devolve a lot of Federal powers back to the states. In fact historically that is how most things were done, so you're not exactly creating a convincing (rational) nightmare scenario under a Trump Presidency. But then, nightmares rarely tend to be rational

I don't know, Daemon.  It sounds pretty nightmarish to me.

A country where you are married in one state, but not another?  A country were you are legally insured in one state, but not another?  A country where one state can pollute another, but can't agree on whether it's pollution or not?  This doesn't sound like a functional country to me.

Perhaps back in the 1700's and 1800's, this could have worked (at least until we had a horrible Civil War to settle a few of these conflicts, including the big one, slavery).  But I really don't see it working well now.  States are too interconnected today.  Heck, countries are too interconnected.  Having laws change every few hundred miles isn't going to work well for very long.  Not in this day and age, when you can pass through a dozen states in a day.

There are plenty of rational nightmares in your scenario. :(
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on April 25, 2016, 02:59:48 PM
TheDeamon, I agree with your meta-analysis, though I was painting the probable "nightmare" scenario to correspond to AI's nonsense, and I think its far more likely that a President Trump would actually make deals rather than become autocratic.  I do see executive overreach as the most consequential issue for the protection of our rights and freedoms and I'd expect President Clinton to continue the work of President Obama in creating a Presidential dictatorship.

The reason that Wayward is not correct in his counter is that Congress actually has the power, if it unites, to overcome the executive branch.  It can overturn vetoes and put laws in place against the executive's will, and ultimately it can impeach a President who deliberately violates his duty in office.  The most dangerous thing we have today, is a blindly partisan portion of the Senate that protects executive overreach because it believes that the Ends justify the Means.

None of his nightmares actually occurs if you have a united Congress, they only occur if you have a Congress that can't agree and an executive that can't abuse its authority and act like a King.  And then what, we're left with the "nightmare" in a country that has deep deep divides over what is the correct course of action of not having a SINGLE course shoved down the throats of every person in the country?  How is that a bad thing?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 25, 2016, 06:21:43 PM
Quote
I do see executive overreach as the most consequential issue for the protection of our rights and freedoms and I'd expect President Clinton to continue the work of President Obama in creating a Presidential dictatorship.
Well, that explains why you think what I say is nonsense :).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 25, 2016, 06:45:29 PM
The reason that Wayward is not correct in his counter is that Congress actually has the power, if it unites, to overcome the executive branch.  It can overturn vetoes and put laws in place against the executive's will, and ultimately it can impeach a President who deliberately violates his duty in office.  The most dangerous thing we have today, is a blindly partisan portion of the Senate that protects executive overreach because it believes that the Ends justify the Means.

None of his nightmares actually occurs if you have a united Congress, they only occur if you have a Congress that can't agree and an executive that can't abuse its authority and act like a King.  And then what, we're left with the "nightmare" in a country that has deep deep divides over what is the correct course of action of not having a SINGLE course shoved down the throats of every person in the country?  How is that a bad thing?

This is why I don't see Trump as a world ending event. I don't see an outcome where at least 2/3rds of Congress doesn't intervene to stop Trump from doing monumentally stupid things.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 25, 2016, 07:01:04 PM
A country where you are married in one state, but not another?  A country were you are legally insured in one state, but not another?

To be quite callous on this one, that is unquestionably a micro-scale concern in the grand scheme of things. The national economy will be in no form of peril should the above scenario occur, as terrifying as it may be for the people who experience it first hand.

Quote
A country where one state can pollute another, but can't agree on whether it's pollution or not?  This doesn't sound like a functional country to me.

Ever hear of a group known as CARB? It has stricter standards than the Federal EPA requirements, yet most vehicles sold in North America are compliant with CARB requirements. I think you'd find not much dispute in regards to a wide range of pollutants, even between red and blue state Environmental agencies. Besides, federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes between states, so even if Trump managed to abolish the EPA and somehow revoke a laundry list of congressional legislation without the consent of Congress, I think you'd find a majority of states stepping up to fill the void.

Now if you're talking about CO2 being a pollutant, as well as a few other select things, you may have a case there. But you'd have an uphill fight on those as it is today with many people.

Quote
Perhaps back in the 1700's and 1800's, this could have worked (at least until we had a horrible Civil War to settle a few of these conflicts, including the big one, slavery).  But I really don't see it working well now.  States are too interconnected today.  Heck, countries are too interconnected.  Having laws change every few hundred miles isn't going to work well for very long.  Not in this day and age, when you can pass through a dozen states in a day.

Which is why there is a constitutional carve-out explicitly for "interstate commerce" and I highly doubt Trump, or anyone in Congress has any interest in doing anything that could actively harm the national economy.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 26, 2016, 08:01:12 AM
Quote
To be quite callous on this one, that is unquestionably a micro-scale concern in the grand scheme of things. The national economy will be in no form of peril should the above scenario occur, as terrifying as it may be for the people who experience it first hand.
Does "micro-scale" mean it is unimportant, even though it may be "terrifying for the people who experience it first hand"?  If it's unimportant, should it not be pushed for or supported so as not to distract ourselves from "macro-scale" threats that may not "terrify" nearly as many people in the US as this issue does?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 26, 2016, 12:05:42 PM
Quote
To be quite callous on this one, that is unquestionably a micro-scale concern in the grand scheme of things. The national economy will be in no form of peril should the above scenario occur, as terrifying as it may be for the people who experience it first hand.
Does "micro-scale" mean it is unimportant, even though it may be "terrifying for the people who experience it first hand"?  If it's unimportant, should it not be pushed for or supported so as not to distract ourselves from "macro-scale" threats that may not "terrify" nearly as many people in the US as this issue does?

In this case, kind of. Because "in the grand scheme of things" such an event would be a rallying cry for the already very substantial support base that particular demographic already enjoys. The situation would be unpleasant to go through, but it isn't much different from things they've already experienced(or even still are), and is unlikely to persist for very long after that term of office ends.

...Also, in the case of Trump, he seems to have come out in favor of gay rights recently. So unless you happen to be a gay illegal immigrant that happens to be a Muslim, I think Cruz is likely to be more terrifying than Trump.

...Of course, Trump suddenly becoming pro-gay rights during a Republican Presidential Primary before locking down the nomination also plays well in motivating "the religious right" to show up and vote, against him. Making it yet another possible evidence that he's trying to lose.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 26, 2016, 03:37:05 PM
Personally, I think Cruz is actually evil, while Trump is merely flamboyant and narcissistic.  Neither have the kinds of qualities I would hope people are drawn to for their next President.   FWIW, I don't think Trump is "trying to lose", he's just incapable of taking anyone else's rules seriously.  I imagine that if he went to someone's funeral he would find a way to commandeer the scene to make sure he got more attention than the low-energy (aka lifeless) headliner.  Cruz on the other hand thinks that due to Obama we're headed for the apocalypse, so no measures and methods are too extreme.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on April 26, 2016, 03:53:43 PM
If he's trying to save us from the apocalypse rather than rush head first towards rapture time, that makes me think better of him.  ;)
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 26, 2016, 04:32:46 PM
I think rather he's trying to get to front of the line to make sure he gets in.  His father (apocalyptic preacher) has actually claimed that Ted was anointed to be the next President.  It would be fun to put Ted and Donald in a room together and force them to agree which would be President.  I bet they couldn't even agree which one gets to split a cookie in half to share.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 26, 2016, 06:12:00 PM
I think in that instance Trump would be too busy being outraged that not enough cookies were provided. Also, splitting cookies is a task he pays others to do.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on April 26, 2016, 06:17:26 PM
He doesn't need your cookies. Let me tell you something he already has cookies, lots of cookies, very good cookies. /meme
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on April 26, 2016, 09:45:00 PM
He doesn't need your cookies. Let me tell you something he already has cookies, lots of cookies, very good cookies. /meme

In that vein, Trump probably wouldn't see a need to split the cookie, as he likely views it as being of questionable origin and thus unfit for his consumption.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: D.W. on April 26, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
I'm now imagining cookie monster spewing crumbs all over the place while Trump calls him disgusting.   ;D
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: AI Wessex on April 27, 2016, 07:45:37 AM
But he would be quick enough to apply the 5-second rule and collect the crumbs and sell them as Trump meal.  It looks like over half of the GOP primary voters now would line up for a package.  In future years we'll all wonder how he made so few cookies go so far.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Crunch on August 15, 2019, 06:33:27 PM
That seems to me that is exactly what Steven Aftergood was saying--no evidence has been put forward at this time that would lead one to the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton had committed a crime, so no conclusions can be drawn.  But the proviso "at this time" indicates that the situation could change with more information.

So while it very well could be that Hillary might be indicted and might possibly be found guilty of a crime, it is also quite possible that nothing will come of it.  And considering how much smoke (aka blatant lies) the Right has blow in the past (Foster's "murder," Birtherism, etc., etc.), I'm not putting any bets on this latest scandal.

Will I be shocked if Clinton is indicted, or even convicted?  No, not really.  Would I be outraged if she isn't indicted or convicted?  Hardly.  Not even surprised at this point.  I trust the Right just about as far as I can throw them--and I have pretty weak arms. :)

Might as well put this here:

Quote
The metadata in Hillary Clinton's emails contained a Gmail address with the name of a Chinese company: "carterheavyindustries@gmail.com" according to documents released by a Senate committee yesterday.

Jeannette McMillian, an attorney for the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG), told Congress that this email with the name of a Chinese company appeared to serve as a "live dropbox" for all of Clinton's emails.

McMillian told Congress that the Carter Heavy Industries email address in the Clinton-email metadata was set up to receive a copy of every email sent and received as they were sent, even if the intended addressee was different.

So her system seems to have had a virus implanted into it that sent each and every email, including the top secret classified ones, to a drop box controlled by a Chinese company. The system had been infected so that every email was sent to this address of a Chinese company, no matter who you actually intended to send it to, or not send it to.

Tens of thousands of emails, including classified information, all sent to China. Chinese intelligence teams must have been ecstatic.

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 15, 2019, 07:05:52 PM
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but here:

Quote
Frank Rucker, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) investigator who spotted the anomaly, searched Google for “Carter Heavy Industries” and came up with results for Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Co., Ltd, a Chinese manufacturer of excavators and heavy machinery, according to the documents.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz was aware of the ICIG’s referral to the FBI but did not address it in his 568-page report on the FBI and DOJ handling of the Clinton-email inquiry.

Horowitz wrote that his office did not find any evidence to contradict the claims of Combetta’s lawyer.

“Accordingly, other than the similarity discussed above between the dummy email address and the name of a Chinese company identified by the former ICIG analyst and former Inspector General McCullough during a Google search, the ICIG and the DOJ OIG are unaware of any information that links Combetta or the dummy email address that he created with the Chinese government or a Chinese-owned company,” Horowitz and Atkinson wrote.

It's a gmail user name. Who knows where he came up with that? Nothing was getting copied to carterheavyindustries.com. Nothing went to an IP in China.

Fake News
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2019, 07:29:11 AM
It’s more of a he said she said. Elements within the FBI have clearly colluded woth Clinton as have the DOJ. I guess you can believe whichever one you want.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2019, 07:55:01 AM
I found the article you quoted. You left this out:

Quote
Frank Rucker, the ICIG investigator, and Jeanette McMillian, an ICIG attorney, told the FBI about the anomaly on Feb. 18, 2016, at a meeting which included Peter Strzok, who had just taken over as the section chief heading the investigation. Rucker told Congress that Strzok was “aloof and dismissive” and didn’t ask many questions.

So yeah, let’s believe the FBI.

Also something you left out:

Quote
In the letter, Horowitz and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson write that the Carter Heavy Industries email account was created by Platte River Networks employee Paul Combetta, who managed Clinton’s email server. Combetta allegedly created the Carter Heavy Industries email on Aug. 20, 2012. Combetta then used the email as a “dummy email” in order to transfer messages archived on Clinton’s second private server to the Platte River Networks server in early 2014.

What Combetta did with the email account between 2012 and 2014 and who else had access to it before and after the transfer remains a mystery. Neither the DOJ nor the ICIG inspector generals provide any details on whether the FBI ever examined the matter.

Combetta’s use of this email account is addressed in Horowitz’s report, although it is referred to as a “dummy email” instead of revealing the actual address. Horowitz and Atkinson do not explain how Combetta came to pick the email address. Combetta’s lawyer told Horowitz that the Carter Heavy Industries email was a made-up name and that Combetta had no connection to Shandong Carter Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.

That report tried to hide the actual email address. Guess why.

Computer guys, if you run a server is this how you do a backup? If you admin a email server, do you insert a random email address into every email so it can be sent to offsite accounts? Obviously the answer to both of those questions is a unqualified no.

Combetta has refused to cooperate with the DOJ inspectors, he refused to speak with them in any capacity.

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 12:47:08 PM
NO COLLUSION!
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: scifibum on August 16, 2019, 05:14:25 PM
The right wing media is still doing BUT HER EMAILS for sane and normal reasons, I'm sure.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08-14%20Staff%20memo%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20-%20ICIG%20Interview%20Summary%20RE%20Clinton%20Server.pdf

Look at page 100.

The email admin created the email address for a specified reason, the investigation corroborated this, didn't find any evidence of intrusion. Just because the right wing media doesn't understand the method this Combetta guy used to move an email archive doesn't imply anything about anything.

There's no evidence of anything being sent to China. That's an inaccurate (and probably bad faith) inference from the hypothetical an analyst came up with, but Combetta's explanation was corroborated by investigation, while there's no shred of evidence to validate the hypothetical.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2019, 05:36:14 PM
The right wing media is still doing BUT HER EMAILS for sane and normal reasons, I'm sure.

I'm still on it because of the lies that were told.  When Comey cleared Hillary he failed to mention that the DOJ had already decided that they would not bring charges based on gross negligence (which is in the statute), whether or not it existed.  That gem turned up in Lisa Page's released testimony.

So when he said no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case it was a direct lie, that should be read as "no prosecutor in the head office of Obama's DOJ is willing to apply the law and bring the case."
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: scifibum on August 16, 2019, 05:40:09 PM
Your incredible double standard when it comes to Mueller vs. the multiple investigations into Clinton's emails is noted.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 05:54:43 PM
Yup. There are still people out there harping about Bush's lies, and that helped start a war. What did Clinton's emails cost us again? We don't even know that any of those emails were lost or exposed, just mishandled, right? Meanwhile, Trump can barely manage to exhale without lying about something.

It seems for most people, what they're mad about is that they missed a chance to take down the evil Clinton.

I'm not arguing for or against what happened, just saying at some point you accept it and move on.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Wayward Son on August 16, 2019, 06:07:39 PM
And didn't Jared, Ivanka and quite a few others (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-officials-private-email-ivanka-jared-kushner-betsy-devos-1449556) use private email accounts for official communications, too?  Have all of those private email servers been vetted, too?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: scifibum on August 16, 2019, 06:13:17 PM
Note -  you can import a mailbox into Gmail, and you can also transfer a Gmail mailbox into Exchange.

See this redacted document that it's now clear is about this same transfer of email:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11lpMyGaepsu6if20wLKpDl88UQ1IEQlH/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11lpMyGaepsu6if20wLKpDl88UQ1IEQlH/view)

It doesn't surprise me that various frothy right wing outlets are attempting to claim that this means that all Clinton's emails were sent to China, or that Crunch is uncritically repeating the same claims here, but it's pretty easy to see that the FBI investigated this and found otherwise.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on August 16, 2019, 06:16:13 PM
And didn't Jared, Ivanka and quite a few others (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-officials-private-email-ivanka-jared-kushner-betsy-devos-1449556) use private email accounts for official communications, too?  Have all of those private email servers been vetted, too?

My understanding is they use their "official" emails for official business, and their personal e-mails for business NOT allowed on government systems. That said, they do occasionally(or even frequently) get people who send "official" e-mails to the unofficial address, and they have reported that they normally forward/cc those e-mails on to the official email address.

They can't help where other people send stuff when the sender has both addresses. They can only help where their "official business" correspondence originates from.

Hillary Clinton was a case where everything went through the unofficial email, both Governmental and non-governmental.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on August 16, 2019, 06:33:51 PM
Your incredible double standard when it comes to Mueller vs. the multiple investigations into Clinton's emails is noted.

What double standard would that be?  Mueller's investigation was a witch hunt with no proper predicate or underlying violation of a law.  He thing made up a legal standard that has never been applied to anyone in any court as the standard to apply.  Prosecuted people for process crimes without any underlying criminality.

Versus, Hillary where everyone knows she set up the server to violate Government obligations on transparency, where the DOJ refused to apply the actual law (note they didn't apply a made up standard more aggressively than on anyone in history, they just declined to apply the actual law).  There was an actual violation of law here, yet instead of prosecuting process crimes where she and her staff deliberately obstructed justice and lied to investagators they granted immunity deals in exchange for no testimoney whatsoever.

There was a double standard in play, it's just not mine.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2019, 08:43:36 PM
Everyone knows she did it to avoid transparency? I must have missed the memo on that one.

Must be like how everyone knows Trump committed obstruction.

In any event, it isn't about the various merits. It's about moving on once an investigation is complete.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on August 19, 2019, 09:32:43 AM
Is it like that, TheDrake?

Maybe I missed once, in the dozens of times I asked those on these boards, or in the thousands of hours of reading and coverage where someone put forward an explanation for why she set that server up, other than to avoid disclosure requirements.

Or maybe you missed it where the State Department, which knew she had a private server, returned responses stating they had no responsive records on FOIA requests where the records were on her server and not theirs?  Or where she failed to forward any of the required records to the state department, in hard or soft copy as she was legally required to do.

I agree, I don't have a memo from her, but there is still no question.

Happy to reargue on the relative merits of "obstruction" in looking at say the comparative cases of destroying your servers physically after running bleach bit on them, as compared to directing your staff to cooperate fully and giving full access to the Special Prosecutor.  I mean honestly, why are they trying to subpeona McCahn?  Oh yeah, cause they fully disclosed conversations that made the President look bad - EVER see anything equilvalent from Hillary's team?  Nope, and we know they did such things cause their emails were leaked afterwards.

So yes, there is a double standard here, just not mine.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 19, 2019, 11:12:50 AM
Clinton was totally exonerated, the email server was not illegal and it did not violate any rules.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on August 19, 2019, 11:17:29 AM
Clinton was totally exonerated, the email server was not illegal and it did not violate any rules.

Putting aside motive speculation, theories, and doubt, all three of these statements are factually false.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 19, 2019, 11:37:06 AM
Clinton was totally exonerated, the email server was not illegal and it did not violate any rules.

Putting aside motive speculation, theories, and doubt, all three of these statements are factually false.

Really? Which law got broken again? Was she indicted? Which rule was broken? Was she censured? You have to accept the outcome of an investigation.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on August 19, 2019, 11:54:43 AM
Clinton was totally exonerated

She was not, Comey was clear she was guilty of negligence - i.e. she did was it was thought she did. What he said was that they would not prosecute it.

Quote
the email server was not illegal

Do you really believe that? Or do you mean something else, which is that you believe she never had criminal intent in using it? It was definitely illegal, I'm not even sure what reason you could have for suggesting it wasn't.

Quote
and it did not violate any rules.

It didn't violate FOIA rules?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on August 19, 2019, 12:23:44 PM
Clinton was totally exonerated

She was not, Comey was clear she was guilty of negligence - i.e. she did what it was thought she did. What he said was that they would not prosecute it.

And the reason for lack of prosecution was inability to "demonstrate intent" whatever that is supposed to mean in that particular context, as has been hashed over previously.

Quote
Quote
the email server was not illegal

Do you really believe that? Or do you mean something else, which is that you believe she never had criminal intent in using it? It was definitely illegal, I'm not even sure what reason you could have for suggesting it wasn't.

I think he's confusing "but members of the Bush Admin (kind-of) did the same thing" with it being legal for both groups to have done so. Never mind that for example, in the case of Collin Powell, it was because the State Department's system couldn't support Blackberry's while he was in office, so he had a (non-government) server setup to allow him to use one. While the Bush White House was outed for an issue not much unlike the Trump's have had. They had an email system for the political/campaign activities, and then they had their "official business" email, where some official business wound up on the political/campaign email sever.

Not the same thing as everything being filtered through a third party server. Or having Anthony Wiener handling classified correspondence he didn't have clearance for so Hillary Clinton could read print-outs because she's evidently very technically illiterate. And how did that aspect not get more press attention? She doesn't want to touch a computer, and yet she's supposed to be the person to lead us into a bright and promising Technology based future?

Meanwhile we have Trump who we can't seem to keep away from electronic devices which can use Twitter.

Quote
Quote
and it did not violate any rules.

It didn't violate FOIA rules?

Not just FOIA, there are (more obscure) laws on the books regarding the National Archives which Hillary violated as well by doing what she did. Further, by all accounts, the FOIA and National Archive issues are unique to Hillary.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDeamon on August 19, 2019, 12:29:06 PM
Not the same thing as everything being filtered through a third party server. Or having Anthony Wiener handling classified correspondence he didn't have clearance for so Hillary Clinton could read print-outs because she's evidently very technically illiterate. And how did that aspect not get more press attention?

And to come back to this one, the Anthony Wiener thing was such a blatant violation of so many laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified, or even simply "Sensitive" materials as to be absolutely amazing that no charges were brought up against any of the three people involved in that particular chain of events.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on August 19, 2019, 01:09:14 PM
Clinton was totally exonerated

She was not, Comey was clear she was guilty of negligence - i.e. she did what it was thought she did. What he said was that they would not prosecute it.

And the reason for lack of prosecution was inability to "demonstrate intent" whatever that is supposed to mean in that particular context, as has been hashed over previously.

Actually no.  Lisa Page's released Congressional testimony was very informative on this point.  The DOJ directed the FBI that the DOJ would not prosecute Clinton for gross negligence, notwithstanding the plain words of the statute.

Comey's words well beyond what was really the case.  An accurate version of what he said is: "we have established gross negligence on behalf of Clinton and her aides, and the DOJ has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to not prosecute those violations."  The idea that anyone can say with a straight face that she was exonerated, or did not violate the law, is just a master piece in propaganda.

...the email server was not illegal and it did not violate any rules.

The email server was not illegal (as a technicality, it certainly violate multiple rules) largely because no one ever contemplated anyone would be able to override all the safeguards in place that should have prevented it from ever happening.  It's sophistry over substance to pretend otherwise.  Every single last rule related to security, use of government email and retention was premised on mandating that government employees use only governmental systems for official business.  She openly violated all those directives, she did so despite multiple people on multiple occasions telling her that she did so.

She then blatantly violated the legal requirements that were imposed on her, that she acknowledged and agreed to, about mandatory record keeping of work related files received on personal accounts.

Despite Comey's conclusion these were in fact all intentional and knowing violations.  Setting up the server and redirecting all email is not an "accident" or an act of "negligence," its an intentional act.

I think he's confusing "but members of the Bush Admin (kind-of) did the same thing" with it being legal for both groups to have done so.

That's just cover propaganda, what happened in Clinton's office has no parallel in Bush's office or anyone else's.  There is no parallel to an intentional redirection of that magnitude other than those that are for nefarious purposes (e.g., Russian and Chinese hacking), even whistleblowers have done data dumps and not real time re-transmissions.

Quote
While the Bush White House was outed for an issue not much unlike the Trump's have had. They had an email system for the political/campaign activities, and then they had their "official business" email, where some official business wound up on the political/campaign email sever.

Don't know why this keeps coming up, it's mandatory to have separate equipment for non-government use because using government accounts for political activity is illegal.  There are clear rules about what do with official business that comes in on the non-government servers (all of which Clinton ignored and violated).
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on August 19, 2019, 01:12:40 PM
And to come back to this one, the Anthony Wiener thing was such a blatant violation of so many laws and regulations regarding the handling of classified, or even simply "Sensitive" materials as to be absolutely amazing that no charges were brought up against any of the three people involved in that particular chain of events.

I mean, "the secretary of state told me to do it" is probably a good excuse for why you thought something was ok. I wasn't really expecting the private team to get in trouble, although there are lines. Like, "I tortured that guy because my C/O said so" is not excusable and should result in a court martial, when it's clearly a breach of human rights and a violation of what any Joe Blo would know crosses into "evil" territory. When it's a matter of security clearance regulations and so forth I wouldn't be surprised for a tech firm to hear from the SecState "I cleared it, go right ahead" and assume everything was fine.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 19, 2019, 01:41:03 PM
Quote
The idea that anyone can say with a straight face that she was exonerated, or did not violate the law, is just a master piece in propaganda.

At least as straight a face as people who claim total exoneration from a report that explicitly goes out of its way to say that it was not an exoneration.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Seriati on August 19, 2019, 02:08:31 PM
Lol.  As I mentioned above, Mueller applied a legal standard never applied to anyone ever "not exonerated," which is a form of guilty till proven innocent.

I grant you I was referring to his conspiracy theory (which is big stretch), but it also applies to the "not exonerated" standard.

Do you not see how you are undermining your position about who's applying two standards?
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on August 19, 2019, 02:13:33 PM
At least as straight a face as people who claim total exoneration from a report that explicitly goes out of its way to say that it was not an exoneration.

Just make sure not to get caught up in that game, where [rightly] pointing fingers at the other side means that it's a free-for-all and that it ceases to be about everyone being held to a standard of decency and instead descends into beating the other team. If 'my team' behaves just like the other team does, it doesn't mean 'well they made us do it, and anyhow they're worse'. What it means is that they're not your team anymore, no matter what color jersey they have on. Better to walk off the field than turn baseball into dirtball.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: TheDrake on August 19, 2019, 03:30:10 PM
It's more about getting caught up in the game where you're still talking about how your team got robbed on a bad call several years after the game ended.
Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: Fenring on August 19, 2019, 03:49:25 PM
It's more about getting caught up in the game where you're still talking about how your team got robbed on a bad call several years after the game ended.

No, NO! - it's more like when Mickey Mantle in the '51 World Series...ok, let's drop the baseball metaphor.

My point is there is no fruit in referencing the Trump situation when discussing what were and were not facts several years ago in a different case about different issues. It's not even whataboutism, it's more like "what does it matter any more?" Well it matters! Just make sure you hold both sides to it and step away from both of them if they have crossed the line.

Title: Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
Post by: NobleHunter on August 19, 2019, 04:01:27 PM
Lol.  As I mentioned above, Mueller applied a legal standard never applied to anyone ever "not exonerated," which is a form of guilty till proven innocent.

I don't think "exonerated" is a legal standard either.