Author Topic: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)  (Read 38080 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #200 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.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #201 on: August 16, 2019, 06:07:39 PM »
And didn't Jared, Ivanka and quite a few others use private email accounts for official communications, too?  Have all of those private email servers been vetted, too?

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #202 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

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.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #203 on: August 16, 2019, 06:16:13 PM »
And didn't Jared, Ivanka and quite a few others 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #204 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #205 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #206 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #207 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #208 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #209 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #210 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?

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #211 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.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #212 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #213 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).

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #214 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #215 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.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #216 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?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #217 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.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #218 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.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #219 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.


NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #220 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.