Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)

[D.W.]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[DJQuag]

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/

[AI Wessex]

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?

[DJQuag]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[Gaoics79]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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?

[AI Wessex]

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).

[Gaoics79]

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.

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?

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.

[JoshCrow]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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?

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.

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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?

[Fenring]

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.

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 ).

and that things must change;

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

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? 

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?

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.

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.

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?

[Greg Davidson]

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?

[AI Wessex]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[D.W.]

WTF are you doing in our waters?!
Umm, sorry, mechanical failure.
Oh... OK, on your way then.

Thanks Obama!

[Fenring]

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.

[DJQuag]

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/

[DJQuag]

"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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Fenring]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Seriati]

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?

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.

Like forgetting to use the official office stationary when sending out a cover letter on a business proposal?

In what way?

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.

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.

Is that a grossly simplified version of the thinking?

No, I think it was an ill-considered attempt at parody.

[Seriati]

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.

[D.W.]

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. 

In what way?

See the sentences in the paragraph my quote was cut from?  That way.  I guess.  Or ask a more specific question.

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”) 

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?

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. 

[AI Wessex]

The "updated" article contains statements that were true one year ago and known to be false today

For instance?

[Seriati]

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.

[NobleHunter]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[AI Wessex]

"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.

"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?

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.

[Seriati]

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? 

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Seriati]

"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?

"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.

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).

[Fenring]

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.

[AI Wessex]

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!

[Pete at Home]

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."

[AI Wessex]

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?

[DJQuag]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/by-all-means-democrats-make-slavery-reparations-into-a-campaign-issue/

[AI Wessex]

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 in his country.  It's more than elegant in its raw appeal to his countrymen's humanity.

[Greg Davidson]

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.

• 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

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?

[Fenring]

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.

[Pete at Home]

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.

[AI Wessex]

Interesting take 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.