Author Topic: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)  (Read 46035 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #100 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.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #101 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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #102 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.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #103 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. :)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #104 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?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #105 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.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #106 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.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #107 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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #108 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).

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #109 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.  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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #110 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.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #111 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. 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #112 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? ;)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #113 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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #114 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.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #115 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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #116 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. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #117 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.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #118 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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #119 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.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #120 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. 

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #121 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."

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #122 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".

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #123 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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #124 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.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #125 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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 01:13:07 PM by LetterRip »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #126 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.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #127 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...
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 01:33:28 PM by LetterRip »

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #128 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.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #129 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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 01:49:37 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #130 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?

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #131 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. ;)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #132 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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #133 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.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #134 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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 08:55:22 PM by LetterRip »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #135 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.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #136 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?

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #137 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.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #138 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.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #139 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.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 08:06:05 AM by AI Wessex »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #140 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?

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #141 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.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 01:54:07 PM by AI Wessex »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #142 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.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #143 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

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #144 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.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #145 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.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #146 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.


Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #147 on: April 11, 2016, 07:43:41 PM »
Oops, forgot to add the link to the source of the quote below.  :-[

Oh, and about the emails, a little PolitiFact article:

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.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #148 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).

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Hillary: Too risky a candidate (cont'd)
« Reply #149 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. :)