Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (11 Viewers)

[GrandpaRox]

I refuse to take liberal and progressive politicians and Hollywood anti gun elites seriously until they practice what they preach and give up all armed security men and women. They live by the philosophy of …..”Do as I say, not as I do.” They appear completely oblivious to their own double standard and hypocrisy.

 

[jon_mx]

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

It is not allowed to use your government email for anything private. HTH, but it won't for an endless Hillay-apologist.

The irony is that this committee is providig a perfect example of why Hillary wanted a separate server in the first place.

No government official should want or have a private email server to hide things from congress.

When that public official knows that her private emails are going to examined, mischaracterized, and misconstrued for political reasons, he/she absolutely would want a mechanism in place to shield that data from the inevitable political shenanigans.

It is not allowed to use your government email for anything private. HTH, but it won't for an endless Hillay-apologist.

This is probably the policy in most of the businesses we all work in. And most of us also aren't supposed to browse the web all day for fun at our jobs either. Yet we all do.

And what is your point???? If Hillary wanted prrsonal e-mail all she had to do was set up a personal account, like all the rest of us 3 million people do.It is only when you co-mingle work and personal business do you risk losing your privacy.

 

[The Commish]

TGunz gaining on Tim and Squishy....quickly! And if we are to believe him, he doesn't even support her.

 

[squistion]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi-cia_562414f3e4b0bce3470122c5

Top Dem Slams Benghazi Committee Chair For False Claim Against Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on the committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, called out the committee's chair on Sunday for advancing a claim against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the CIA later proved false.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, alleged in an Oct. 7 letter that Clinton used her private email account to release the name of a CIA source on Libya. An email sent by adviser Sidney Blumenthal that she then forwarded to a member of her staff reportedly contained the name of that source, which would have suggested that Clinton used her private email server to disseminate classified information.

But on Sunday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's ranking member, revealed that the CIA investigated the email and found that the information was not classified.

"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information," Cummings said in a letter to Gowdy.

He called Gowdy's claim "irresponsible" and said he owes Clinton "an immediate apology."

 

[Sinn Fein]

Seems the Media's post-debate love-fest with Clinton is over. Today's headlines:

Benghazi, Sid-ghazi and Huma-ghazi: Can Clinton weather the storm? -LATimes

Clinton’s ‘Please Hack Me’ Server - WSJ

Hillary: Not Out of the Woods Yet - HuffPost

Hillary Clinton is still a terrible candidate - The Week

 

[timschochet]

Seems the Media's post-debate love-fest with Clinton is over. Today's headlines:

Benghazi, Sid-ghazi and Huma-ghazi: Can Clinton weather the storm? -LATimes

Clintons Please Hack Me Server - WSJ

Hillary: Not Out of the Woods Yet - HuffPost

Hillary Clinton is still a terrible candidate - The Week

What love fest? They grudgingly admitted that she won, barely. Now they are on the attack again. No surprise there.

 

[The Commish]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi-cia_562414f3e4b0bce3470122c5

Top Dem Slams Benghazi Committee Chair For False Claim Against Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on the committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, called out the committee's chair on Sunday for advancing a claim against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the CIA later proved false.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, alleged in an Oct. 7 letter that Clinton used her private email account to release the name of a CIA source on Libya. An email sent by adviser Sidney Blumenthal that she then forwarded to a member of her staff reportedly contained the name of that source, which would have suggested that Clinton used her private email server to disseminate classified information.

But on Sunday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's ranking member, revealed that the CIA investigated the email and found that the information was not classified.

"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information," Cummings said in a letter to Gowdy.

He called Gowdy's claim "irresponsible" and said he owes Clinton "an immediate apology."

Did Gowdy claim the CIA exposure was a release of classified information or did he just say that emails showed she released the name via her private email account? The article wasn't really clear. Seems to be talking about two different things.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Seems the Media's post-debate love-fest with Clinton is over. Today's headlines:

Benghazi, Sid-ghazi and Huma-ghazi: Can Clinton weather the storm? -LATimes

Clintons Please Hack Me Server - WSJ

Hillary: Not Out of the Woods Yet - HuffPost

Hillary Clinton is still a terrible candidate - The Week

What love fest? They grudgingly admitted that she won, barely. Now they are on the attack again. No surprise there.

I don't think there was any begrudging - the pundits all thought Clinton essentially closed out the nomination with her performance at the debate. It was not until after they had reported on the coronation that you saw a backlash from some over-zealous Sanders' supporters who caused the media to blink on the debate results.

Certainly, right-leaning media are going to bash Clinton at any chance they get. But, the left-leaning media has been much more willing to back Clinton on teh majority of issues. On the whole, i think the national media is as out-of-touch with the electorate, and what affects their mood, as most political candidates.

Political commentators are using an old metric to judge success, but I think we are in a different era - where things that mattered 8 years ago in election reporting, no longer are relevant. We won't know until the votes are cast - but I think pollsters/pundits in future election cycles will be looking back at this election for signs on how to better read the mood of the public.

 

[The Commish]

Seems the Media's post-debate love-fest with Clinton is over. Today's headlines:

Benghazi, Sid-ghazi and Huma-ghazi: Can Clinton weather the storm? -LATimes

Clintons Please Hack Me Server - WSJ

Hillary: Not Out of the Woods Yet - HuffPost

Hillary Clinton is still a terrible candidate - The Week

What love fest? They grudgingly admitted that she won, barely. Now they are on the attack again. No surprise there.

Word doesn't mean what you think it means.....I think

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi-cia_562414f3e4b0bce3470122c5

Top Dem Slams Benghazi Committee Chair For False Claim Against Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on the committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, called out the committee's chair on Sunday for advancing a claim against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the CIA later proved false.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, alleged in an Oct. 7 letter that Clinton used her private email account to release the name of a CIA source on Libya. An email sent by adviser Sidney Blumenthal that she then forwarded to a member of her staff reportedly contained the name of that source, which would have suggested that Clinton used her private email server to disseminate classified information.

But on Sunday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's ranking member, revealed that the CIA investigated the email and found that the information was not classified.

"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information," Cummings said in a letter to Gowdy.

He called Gowdy's claim "irresponsible" and said he owes Clinton "an immediate apology."

What is abundantly clear is that the true name of an identified CIA asset is a highly classified fact and intentionally revealing it is a Federal crime, which Mr. Drumheller, a career spy, had to know. Why he compromised this person who was secretly helping the United States – possibly endangering his life in the process — may never be known because Mr. Drumheller conveniently died of cancer in early August.

http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/

- The name of the source has already been revealed. - It is that of a defector from the Qaddafi government. - At the time of the email the source Koussa (if he was indeed the source) was still in the government, so revealing the name in an unsecured manner was a violation of the law at that time.

- This is also an example of how information becomes less Classified over time, not more as Hillary maintains. Koussa is now well past outted as a US source, but he was not at the time. The government he worked for does not even exist anymore.

- The above is true if Koussa was indeed the source. If he wasn't the source then it just shows Hillary again relying on her own private, for-profit intelligence network instead of looking to professional US-gov resources.

- I think it's also good if we could agree right here right now as per Cummings' suggestion that the Intelligence Community determines if information or data is Classified, not State, not the President, not the SOS, and not any Congressman. - Agreed?

 

[squistion]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-benghazi-cia_562414f3e4b0bce3470122c5

Top Dem Slams Benghazi Committee Chair For False Claim Against Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- The top Democrat on the committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, called out the committee's chair on Sunday for advancing a claim against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the CIA later proved false.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, alleged in an Oct. 7 letter that Clinton used her private email account to release the name of a CIA source on Libya. An email sent by adviser Sidney Blumenthal that she then forwarded to a member of her staff reportedly contained the name of that source, which would have suggested that Clinton used her private email server to disseminate classified information.

But on Sunday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's ranking member, revealed that the CIA investigated the email and found that the information was not classified.

"The CIA yesterday informed both the Republican and Democratic staffs of the Select Committee that they do not consider the information you highlighted in your letter to be classified. Specifically, the CIA confirmed that the State Department consulted with the CIA on this production, the CIA reviewed these documents, and the CIA made no redactions to protect classified information," Cummings said in a letter to Gowdy.

He called Gowdy's claim "irresponsible" and said he owes Clinton "an immediate apology."

What is abundantly clear is that the true name of an identified CIA asset is a highly classified fact and intentionally revealing it is a Federal crime, which Mr. Drumheller, a career spy, had to know. Why he compromised this person who was secretly helping the United States possibly endangering his life in the process may never be known because Mr. Drumheller conveniently died of cancer in early August.

http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/- The name of the source has already been revealed. - It is that of a defector from the Qaddafi government. - At the time of the email the source Koussa (if he was indeed the source) was still in the government, so revealing the name in an unsecured manner was a violation of the law at that time.

- This is also an example of how information becomes less Classified over time, not more as Hillary maintains. Koussa is now well past outted as a US source, but he was not at the time. The government he worked for does not even exist anymore.

- The above is true if Koussa was indeed the source. If he wasn't the source then it just shows Hillary again relying on her own private, for-profit intelligence network instead of looking to professional US-gov resources.

- I think it's also good if we could agree right here right now as per Cummings' suggestion that the Intelligence Community determines if information or data is Classified, not State, not the President, not the SOS, and not any Congressman. - Agreed?

The CIA is considered part of the "Intelligence Community" and they say the information was not classified at the time.

 

[fourd]

The CIA is considered part of the "Intelligence Community" and they say the information was not classified at the time.

I haven't been able to find the part I bolded in your post.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So Squizz you now agree the intelligence community (including the CIa) makes the call on what is Classified? You're on board with this principle?

 

[GrandpaRox]

Hillary’s gun confiscation proposal is going to backfire in a big way

Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

• Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.

 

[squistion]

So Squizz you now agree the intelligence community (including the CIa) makes the call on what is Classified? You're on board with this principle?

Actually I doubt Cummings is completely on board with that principle. He stated that that the CIA, which would seem to be the agency that would (you know) have the inside information on a CIA source, has said that the information was not classified at that time. He didn't make the leap, as you have, that any one of the multiple agencies in the intelligence community is always the last word, particularly when some retroactively classify just about everything.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So Squizz you now agree the intelligence community (including the CIa) makes the call on what is Classified? You're on board with this principle?

Actually I doubt Cummings is completely on board with that principle. He stated that that the CIA, which would seem to be the agency that would (you know) have the inside information on a CIA source, has said that the information was not classified at that time. He didn't make the leap, as you have, that any one of the multiple agencies in the intelligence community is always the last word, particularly when some retroactively classify just about everything.

Why wasn't it classified?

*eta - Putting aside where they claim the CIA said "at that time".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

To thicken a gumbo, add roux.

In Gowdy's response to Cummings:

Contrary to your assertion, the CIA did not inform the Committee that anything about the facts stated in the October 7 letter “[was] wrong.” As usual, I would ask you to completely and accurately relate the facts rather than attempt to create an impression that is misleading based on an incomplete and selective recitation of the facts. In fact, my understanding is the CIA advised the Committee in a very brief email late Saturday night that it had reviewed the material in question and asked for no material to be redacted. In fact, the name of the alleged source was redacted from the material cleared for public release by someone in the Executive Branch – the fact that the CIA says it didn’t do it does not mean the material was not sensitive or classified. And in fact, additional information remains in the document that ordinarily would be considered highly sensitive.

http://benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/gowdy-response-to-latest-cummings-letter

eta - a reminder: the IC consists of several agencies, there are at least 4 others besides the CIA.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Whats wrong with a private server?

U.S. investigating report email account linked to CIA director hacked



Love the reporter in the video "its not only the Russians and Chinese we need to worry about, but stoners in New York, who read the NY Post."

What would you bet that Clinton is behind this hack?

 

[The Commish]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

 

[squistion]

Who says the Republicans are out to get Hillary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

GOP Congressman Already Floating Impeachment For Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't president yet. She hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. But a Republican congressman is already getting ready for the opportunity to impeach her -- on the first day of her hypothetical presidency.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently spoke with talk radio host Matt Murphy and said the real issue with Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state is "how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans."

Brooks added Republicans are going to make sure this issue follows Clinton into office, should she be elected president in 2016.

"And in my judgment, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

Brooks' office did not return a request for future details about the impeachment plan.

 

[Fennis]

Who says the Republicans are out to get Hillary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

GOP Congressman Already Floating Impeachment For Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't president yet. She hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. But a Republican congressman is already getting ready for the opportunity to impeach her -- on the first day of her hypothetical presidency.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently spoke with talk radio host Matt Murphy and said the real issue with Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state is "how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans."

Brooks added Republicans are going to make sure this issue follows Clinton into office, should she be elected president in 2016.

"And in my judgment, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

Brooks' office did not return a request for future details about the impeachment plan.

that is the best thing I have read this week. The GOP is going to make me a Clinton supporter.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yep, welcome to the circus. She is likely to be impeached right after she gets in. Lots to look forward to. ( )

 

[timschochet]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

 

[timschochet]

So let's go back to that testimony that The Commish keeps posting where the guy says, in reference to Hillary's private server, "I would see that as an opportunity." I think we need to ask him some additional questions such as:

1. Suppose Hillary had used a "gov" account like everyone else?

My guessed answer: "Well, I would see that as an opportunity too."

2. Suppose Hillary had a separate account for private emails on a private server, instead of merging them together as her critics suggest?

My guessed answer: "Well, I would see that as an opportunity too."

3. Suppose you knew that the "GOV" accounts were easily accessible, perhaps even easier to break into than Hillary's private server?

My guessed answer: "Well, I would see that as an opportunity too."

4. Do you see Hillary's private server as a GREATER opportunity than any of these other possibilities?

My guessed answer: "No. They're all opportunities."

 

[The Commish]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

It's a big deal because:

What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?

Admiral Rogers: "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."

As to the rest...no idea what your point is other than to illustrate why she wanted the server, which would then turn all the other "reasons" she tried to use into lies.

 

[The Commish]

So let's go back to that testimony that The Commish keeps posting where the guy says, in reference to Hillary's private server, "I would see that as an opportunity." I think we need to ask him some additional questions such as:

1. Suppose Hillary had used a "gov" account like everyone else?

My guessed answer: "Well, I would see that as an opportunity too."

2. Suppose Hillary had a separate account for private emails on a private server, instead of merging them together as her critics suggest?

My guessed answer: "Well, I would see that as an opportunity too."

3. Suppose you knew that the "GOV" accounts were easily accessible, perhaps even easier to break into than Hillary's private server?

My guessed answer: "Well, I would see that as an opportunity too."

4. Do you see Hillary's private server as a GREATER opportunity than any of these other possibilities?

My guessed answer: "No. They're all opportunities."

The "ifs" and "supposition" are false, but if they weren't you'd be correct so you've got that going for you

ETA: To break it down into soundbyte:

1. It's not an "opportunity" like it is on a server that is unsecured like hers. Most likely they could get to the email content (which has never been a concern of mine) but very little chance of being able to use the server as a gateway to anything else.

2. Same as #1. Google's servers wouldn't be able to be used to gain further access beyond the email content and google would know pretty quickly that someone was fishing around their systems in a way they don't approve of.

3. You'd be exactly right....if the servers that run the .gov addresses were as lacking in security as this one, it would be a problem, but they aren't so I don't see the point of this.

4. You'd guess wrong. They'd much rather not play in a monitored sandbox when an unmonitored one is available.....but keep going, these are getting good.

ETA #2: Then there's the whole public retention policies and rules that have to be followed that I don't think we really need to get into, do we?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

There are a few reasons:

• She destroyed public records potentially, then repeatedly lied about what was on the server or was not.
• She evaded inspection of the server. It had to be seized by the DOJ.
• She withheld records from the public.
• She transmitted classified, TS and Secret data on it, unsecured.
• She published her IP/tracking information aiding hackers.
• She undersecured her server.
• She allowed multiple copies of her data to float around. It may not still all be captured.
• She used public funds and her own funds to pay for her own IT. Meanwhile she did not tell State IT what she was doing.

As for your last point, if Hillary had done everything public and official on her State gov account, and if she had properly handled Classified information, then the State Dept IT would have had all her correspondence when FOIA requests would started rolling in 2009-10, Congress would have had all its documentation and there would be no second bite at the apple, there would have been no transfer of classified/secret information by unsecure means, and we'd be talking about Bill's mistresses as the official "scandal" de jour.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Who says the Republicans are out to get Hillary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

GOP Congressman Already Floating Impeachment For Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't president yet. She hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. But a Republican congressman is already getting ready for the opportunity to impeach her -- on the first day of her hypothetical presidency.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently spoke with talk radio host Matt Murphy and said the real issue with Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state is "how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans."

Brooks added Republicans are going to make sure this issue follows Clinton into office, should she be elected president in 2016.

"And in my judgment, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

Brooks' office did not return a request for future details about the impeachment plan.

Good news is she thinks she will be able to work with the GOP congress....

 

[timschochet]

Who says the Republicans are out to get Hillary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

GOP Congressman Already Floating Impeachment For Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't president yet. She hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. But a Republican congressman is already getting ready for the opportunity to impeach her -- on the first day of her hypothetical presidency.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently spoke with talk radio host Matt Murphy and said the real issue with Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state is "how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans."

Brooks added Republicans are going to make sure this issue follows Clinton into office, should she be elected president in 2016.

"And in my judgment, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

Brooks' office did not return a request for future details about the impeachment plan.

Good news is she thinks she will be able to work with the GOP congress....

I believe she will. There are extremists, but what I'm hoping is that the election will bring in new people.

But if worst comes to worst and she can't work with Congress, then she'll end up holding the line on Obama's policies. That's better than reversing them...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It was only later after Nixon resigned that I began to wonder why Felt had talked when doing so carried substantial risks for him and the FBI. Had he been exposed early on, Felt would have been no hero. Technically, it was illegal to talk about grand jury information or FBI files -- or it could have been made to look illegal.

Felt believed he was protecting the bureau by finding a way, clandestine as it was, to push some of the information from the FBI interviews and files out to the public, to help build public and political pressure to make Nixon and his people answerable. He had nothing but contempt for the Nixon White House and their efforts to manipulate the bureau for political reasons. The young eager-beaver patrol of White House underlings, best exemplified by John W. Dean III, was odious to him.

...And the former World War II spy hunter liked the game. I suspect in his mind I was his agent. He beat it into my head: secrecy at all cost, no loose talk, no talk about him at all, no indication to anyone that such a secret source existed.

In our book “All the President’s Men,” Carl and I described how we had speculated about Deep Throat and his piecemeal approach to providing information. Maybe it was to minimize his risk. Or because one or two big stories, no matter how devastating, could be blunted by the White House. Maybe it was simply to make the game more interesting. More likely, we concluded, “Deep Throat was trying to protect the office, to effect a change in its conduct before all was lost.”

Each time I raised the question with Felt, he had the same answer: “I have to do this my way.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mark-felt-became-deep-throat/2012/06/04/gJQAlpARIV_story.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Who says the Republicans are out to get Hillary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

GOP Congressman Already Floating Impeachment For Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton isn't president yet. She hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. But a Republican congressman is already getting ready for the opportunity to impeach her -- on the first day of her hypothetical presidency.

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) recently spoke with talk radio host Matt Murphy and said the real issue with Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state is "how many lives she put at risk by violating all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans."

Brooks added Republicans are going to make sure this issue follows Clinton into office, should she be elected president in 2016.

"And in my judgment, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

Brooks' office did not return a request for future details about the impeachment plan.

Good news is she thinks she will be able to work with the GOP congress....

Right, we're reminded that's one of her strengths.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

 

[timschochet]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

I know where it's supposed to go. I am acknowledging the fact that Hillary has a shady relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who is a shady guy, and was not working for the government. Do you really think he would have sent her stuff to her gov address?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

I know where it's supposed to go. I am acknowledging the fact that Hillary has a shady relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who is a shady guy, and was not working for the government. Do you really think he would have sent her stuff to her gov address?

One unintended positive consequence of Hillary's shadiness is that the federal courts hearing the FOIA requests are setting precedent by going to her private server for public correspondence, which I agree with, and not only that but she has established that as her private server is her main point of contact for public business that everything she did on that server is public record. That could happen.

As for Blumenthal, the data and the correspondence with Hillary is public record, no matter where she kept it. Her mistake was in hiding the information to such an extent that requesters realized they were getting nothing so they went hunting for it until they realized what had happened. But that correspondence with Blumenthal was always public.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Tim - doesn't it bother you at all, or say something about the character of Clinton, that she relied so heavily on Blumenthal for her Libya policy. Blumenthal was rejected by Obama for a State Department job, but Clinton essentially did an end around Obama and said she was going to listen to him for advice in spite of Obama''s wishes.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - doesn't it bother you at all, or say something about the character of Clinton, that she relied so heavily on Blumenthal for her Libya policy. Blumenthal was rejected by Obama for a State Department job, but Clinton essentially did an end around Obama and said she was going to listen to him for advice in spite of Obama''s wishes.

There's no evidence that she DID rely heavily on it.

To answer your specific question: if somebody can demonstrate that Hillary acted on specific advice given to her by Sidney Blumenthal, and that this advice was contrary to the consensus advice of State Department experts and officials, and that this was over a serious matter which, by way of this specific decision, adversely affected US interests, that sure that would bother me greatly, and at the very least I would want Hillary to answer and explain herself in some detail, and if she failed to do so it would seriously affect my evaluation of her as ready to be President. Yes it would.

But I don't have any knowledge that that happened. The simple fact that she received info and advice from Blumenthal and passed it on to see what other people thought of it, that means nothing to me. I would have done the same had I been her. Unsolicited advice (or even vague solicitations like "Keep 'em coming!") can be very useful.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

I know where it's supposed to go. I am acknowledging the fact that Hillary has a shady relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who is a shady guy, and was not working for the government. Do you really think he would have sent her stuff to her gov address?

Aren't you supposed to be defending Hillary?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - doesn't it bother you at all, or say something about the character of Clinton, that she relied so heavily on Blumenthal for her Libya policy. Blumenthal was rejected by Obama for a State Department job, but Clinton essentially did an end around Obama and said she was going to listen to him for advice in spite of Obama''s wishes.

There's no evidence that she DID rely heavily on it.

To answer your specific question: if somebody can demonstrate that Hillary acted on specific advice given to her by Sidney Blumenthal, and that this advice was contrary to the consensus advice of State Department experts and officials, and that this was over a serious matter which, by way of this specific decision, adversely affected US interests, that sure that would bother me greatly, and at the very least I would want Hillary to answer and explain herself in some detail, and if she failed to do so it would seriously affect my evaluation of her as ready to be President. Yes it would.

But I don't have any knowledge that that happened. The simple fact that she received info and advice from Blumenthal and passed it on to see what other people thought of it, that means nothing to me. I would have done the same had I been her. Unsolicited advice (or even vague solicitations like "Keep 'em coming!") can be very useful.

Arming Libyan guerrillas did indeed have resistance within State.

 

[timschochet]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

I know where it's supposed to go. I am acknowledging the fact that Hillary has a shady relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who is a shady guy, and was not working for the government. Do you really think he would have sent her stuff to her gov address?

Aren't you supposed to be defending Hillary?

the point I'm making is that if she truly wanted to hide stuff, having the same email account for everything would not be the way to go about it.

 

[timschochet]

Tim - doesn't it bother you at all, or say something about the character of Clinton, that she relied so heavily on Blumenthal for her Libya policy. Blumenthal was rejected by Obama for a State Department job, but Clinton essentially did an end around Obama and said she was going to listen to him for advice in spite of Obama''s wishes.

There's no evidence that she DID rely heavily on it.

To answer your specific question: if somebody can demonstrate that Hillary acted on specific advice given to her by Sidney Blumenthal, and that this advice was contrary to the consensus advice of State Department experts and officials, and that this was over a serious matter which, by way of this specific decision, adversely affected US interests, that sure that would bother me greatly, and at the very least I would want Hillary to answer and explain herself in some detail, and if she failed to do so it would seriously affect my evaluation of her as ready to be President. Yes it would.

But I don't have any knowledge that that happened. The simple fact that she received info and advice from Blumenthal and passed it on to see what other people thought of it, that means nothing to me. I would have done the same had I been her. Unsolicited advice (or even vague solicitations like "Keep 'em coming!") can be very useful.

Arming Libyan guerrillas did indeed have resistance within State.

Not consensus. There was argument and both sides, and President Obama heard all the arguments before making a decision. You may think he made the wrong one, but it wasn't based on Hillary overriding a State Department consensus because her friend Sidney told her to.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

I know where it's supposed to go. I am acknowledging the fact that Hillary has a shady relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who is a shady guy, and was not working for the government. Do you really think he would have sent her stuff to her gov address?

Aren't you supposed to be defending Hillary?

the point I'm making is that if she truly wanted to hide stuff, having the same email account for everything would not be the way to go about it.

She knows that now in retrospect. Saving all your data on one server, denying the US gov access and totally handling IT herself seems like the most natural way to do it. If it weren't for those meddling kids in Congress she would have gotten away with it too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim - doesn't it bother you at all, or say something about the character of Clinton, that she relied so heavily on Blumenthal for her Libya policy. Blumenthal was rejected by Obama for a State Department job, but Clinton essentially did an end around Obama and said she was going to listen to him for advice in spite of Obama''s wishes.

There's no evidence that she DID rely heavily on it.

To answer your specific question: if somebody can demonstrate that Hillary acted on specific advice given to her by Sidney Blumenthal, and that this advice was contrary to the consensus advice of State Department experts and officials, and that this was over a serious matter which, by way of this specific decision, adversely affected US interests, that sure that would bother me greatly, and at the very least I would want Hillary to answer and explain herself in some detail, and if she failed to do so it would seriously affect my evaluation of her as ready to be President. Yes it would.

But I don't have any knowledge that that happened. The simple fact that she received info and advice from Blumenthal and passed it on to see what other people thought of it, that means nothing to me. I would have done the same had I been her. Unsolicited advice (or even vague solicitations like "Keep 'em coming!") can be very useful.

Arming Libyan guerrillas did indeed have resistance within State.

Not consensus. There was argument and both sides, and President Obama heard all the arguments before making a decision. You may think he made the wrong one, but it wasn't based on Hillary overriding a State Department consensus because her friend Sidney told her to.

Consensus? The SOS was arguing for it. Did Obama know that her friends were hooking up a private arms security business a la Blackwater when she was doing that?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Whatever Blumenthal, Shearer, Drumheller, and Grange were up to in 2011, 2012, and 2013 on Clinton’s behalf, it appears that she could have used the help: According to State Department personnel directories, in 2011 and 2012—the height of the Libya crisis—State didn’t have a Libyan desk officer, and the entire Near Eastern Magreb Bureau, which which covers Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya, had just two staffers.

https://www.propublica.org/article/private-emails-reveal-ex-clinton-aides-secret-spy-network

The complete understaffing of that area aside in light of what happened.... Just where do you think Hillary was getting her information on Libya besides Blumenthal and Drumheller?

 

[The Commish]

good grief...we really do have a bunch of dopes running this country. The lack of knowledge around technology is staggering if not embarrassing.

It's pathetic. Unfathomable stupidity from the highest level.

Well it begs the question- why is Hillary's private server such a big deal?

Suppose Hillary had done what most of her critics say she should have: used a "GOV" account for all official emails, and then kept her private account separate? Where would Sidney Blumenthal, (as one example) sent her emails? To her official account? No, he would have sent her emails to her private account, which nobody would ever have seen. (No doubt some group like Judicial Watch would have attempted to look at Hillary's private accounts through FOIA, but would have likely failed.) So we never would have known what information Hillary was receiving on her private account if she hadn't chose to reveal that to us.

If it's a government-business email, it needs to go to her .gov address. Again, this is a record-keeping and FOIA issue.

I know where it's supposed to go. I am acknowledging the fact that Hillary has a shady relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, who is a shady guy, and was not working for the government. Do you really think he would have sent her stuff to her gov address?

he wouldn't have a choice if she only had one account, but that's not what she wanted....again, poor judgement and/or carelessness

 

[The Commish]

the point I'm making is that if she truly wanted to hide stuff, having the same email account for everything would not be the way to go about it.

it could be....especially if it were some super duper secret one, which clearly was where she was trying to go, but anyone with half a brain understands you can't do super duper secret...someone would eventually spill the beans on an email address they used to talk with her. foolish to try really, but, here we are.

 

[squistion]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0SD2EJ20151019?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews

Clinton's support jumps 10 points post-debate: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Support for former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton among Democrats has jumped since earlier this month, helped by a strong performance in last week's first Democratic presidential candidates debate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Monday.

Fifty-one percent of 1,003 Democrats polled in the online survey said they would vote for Clinton in the 2016 presidential primaries, compared with 27 percent who said they would back her main rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Forty-one percent backed Clinton and 27 percent favored Sanders in the Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on Oct. 9. Support for Vice President Joe Biden among Democrats dropped 6 percentage points to 13 percent from 10 days ago.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

My six year old is really getting into the President's and he has the puzzle where you match up all the President's in order. As I'm reviewing it I noticed that the country has never had 4 straight two term Presidents. Whoever we elect next year will be up against it historically to be reelected.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

GOP Rep Wants To Impeach 'President Hillary Clinton' On Day One

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.)-

"And in my judgement, with respect to Hillary Clinton, she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November, because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors," he said.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

My six year old is really getting into the President's and he has the puzzle where you match up all the President's in order. As I'm reviewing it I noticed that the country has never had 4 straight two term Presidents. Whoever we elect next year will be up against it historically to be reelected.

Every single election breaks (and makes) historical trends of some kind.