Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

How the mighty have fallen.  All this says is that a once proud institution that truly stepped out and brought in the biggest stories of government corruption (Deep Throat, etc.) has fallen into political line.  Just another soldier in the 4th estate army for the DNC now.

RIP Washington Post.

Seems to me that pretty much every time a right or GOP or Trump-friendly editorial is posted, many of the criticisms of it focus on the actual content, challenging actual facts and points and logic found in the piece itself.  Meanwhile, pretty much every time a left or Dem or Clinton-friendly editorial is posted, the responses are all empty histrionics and conspiracy theories. 

I wonder why that is.

 

[Sand]

Seems to me that pretty much every time a right or GOP or Trump-friendly editorial is posted, many of the criticisms of it focus on the actual content, challenging actual facts and points and logic found in the piece itself.  Meanwhile, pretty much every time a left or Dem or Clinton-friendly editorial is posted, the responses are all empty histrionics and conspiracy theories. 

I wonder why that is.

You're picking the wrong guy for strawmen arguments.  I hate both of them.  The Clinton email story is her own fault and very, very much in the realm of deserving further exploration by the media and others.  That the Post should opine that it should be buried is ludicrous.

 

[TobiasFunke]

She still hasn't taken ownership.  She prolongs it accordingly.  

She has, repeatedly, and it has been posted in here multiple times.  I posted one yesterday. Here it is again:

I've been asked many, many questions in the past year about emails, and what I've learned is that when I try to explain what happened, it can sound like I'm trying to excuse what I did, and there are no excuses. I want people to know that the decision to have a single email account was mine, I take responsibility for it, I've apologized for it, I would certainly do differently if I could, but obviously I'm grateful the Justice Department concluded there's no basis to pursue this matter further, and I believe the public will be and is considering my full record and experience as they consider their choice for president.

So it would be cool if you could stop lying so much.  TIA.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You're picking the wrong guy for strawmen arguments.  I hate both of them.  The Clinton email story is her own fault and very, very much in the realm of deserving further exploration by the media and others.  That the Post should opine that it should be buried is ludicrous.

It's not a strawman argument at all.  What I said is exactly what you did- you criticized it with preposterous histrionics and conspiracy theories about the "4th estate army for the DNC" instead of taking apart the actual words on the page. 

For example- can you show me the part that says it should be buried?  FYI, "this story is receiving a disproportionate amount of coverage relative to its importance" is not even close to the same thing as "it should be buried."

 

[Guest]

She has, repeatedly, and it has been posted in here multiple times.  I posted one yesterday. Here it is again:

So it would be cool if you could stop lying so much.  TIA.

It's empty.  She continues to disputes Comey's findings, and has not acknowledged that her team obstructed and she (although she actually lied to the FBI and to Congress) was painfully incompetent and reckless under her version. She's not mentioned the 17,500 emails she held back or why/how, or how Bleachbit came to be used in an "oh ####" moment, or why Teneo emails were hosted on her server and what became of them.  I don't expect her to acknowledge the many lies she told for a year and apologize, but she could at least acknowledge the scale and fact that she sent and received classified information repeatedly and that it was a major breach of trust and protocol. Her "apology" is a non-apology because she gives it on one side of her mouth while continuing to lie and diminish what she did on the other.  

And I ain't the one lying.

 

[Guest]

It's not a strawman argument at all.  What I said is exactly what you did- you criticized it with preposterous histrionics and conspiracy theories about the "4th estate army for the DNC" instead of taking apart the actual words on the page. 

For example- can you show me the part that says it should be buried?  FYI, "this story is receiving a disproportionate amount of coverage relative to its importance" is not even close to the same thing as "it should be buried."

It's an opinion and many of us disagree, because the story revealed a culture of lying, aggressive lawyering, obstruction and poor character that continues to have its messaging tightly controlled by a campaign with deep hooks into the media. It's a major story and one the campaign has taken huge steps to distort and cover up with propaganda. So many dispute that opinion, with cause.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's empty.  She continues to disputes Comey's findings, and has not acknowledged that her team obstructed and she (although she actually lied to the FBI and to Congress) was painfully incompetent and reckless under her version. She's not mentioned three 17,500 emails she held back or why/how, or how Bleachbit came to be used in an "oh ####" moment, or why Teneo emails were hosted on her server and what became of them.  I don't expect her to acknowledge the many lies she told and apologize, but she could at least acknowledge the scale and fact that she sent and received classified information repeatedly and that it was a major breach of trust and protocol. Her "apology" is a non-apology because she gives it on one side of her mouth while continuing to lie and diminish what she did on the other.  

And I ain't the one lying.

"She hasn't taken ownership of the email scandal."

"She has, repeatedly. Here's a quote where she literally says she takes responsibility for it and that it's her fault and hers alone."

"Well she hasn't used exactly the words I want her to use about particular details of the scandal, and also I don't trust her so I'm gonna say some random stuff about how she's still lying out of the other side of her mouth."

That's not how it works. You don't get to make the rules about what it means to "take ownership" of something.  If you want to say that she hasn't knocked on your door and personally answered every question you can come up with while massaging your feet and fetching you beers, then you should say she hasn't done that. Because that would be true. But you said she hasn't taken ownership, and by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase and her comments she has done so, so that was false.

 

[dutch]

"She hasn't taken ownership of the email scandal."

"She has, repeatedly. Here's a quote where she literally says she takes responsibility for it and that it's her fault and hers alone."

"Well she hasn't used exactly the words I want her to use about particular details of the scandal, and also I don't trust her so I'm gonna say some random stuff about how she's still lying out of the other side of her mouth."

That's not how it works. You don't get to make the rules about what it means to "take ownership" of something.  If you want to say that she hasn't knocked on your door and personally answered every question you can come up with while massaging your feet and fetching you beers, then you should say she hasn't done that. Because that would be true. But you said she hasn't taken ownership, and by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase and her comments she has done so, so that was false.

She stopped by my place last night.  She even made me some nachos.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Me: the criticisms are never about the actual words on the page.  They're always about histrionics and conspiracy theories.

Ham:

It's an opinion and many of us disagree, because the story revealed a culture of lying, aggressive lawyering, obstruction and poor character that continues to have its messaging tightly controlled by a campaign with deep hooks into the media. It's a major story and one the campaign has taken huge steps to distort and cover up with propaganda. So many dispute that opinion, with cause.

"Aggresive lawyering" might be my favorite part.  How dare a lawyer involved in a legal matter get all lawyer-y about stuff?  Scandalous!

 

[Sand]

That's not how it works. You don't get to make the rules about what it means to "take ownership" of something.  If you want to say that she hasn't knocked on your door and personally answered every question you can come up with while massaging your feet and fetching you beers, then you should say she hasn't done that. Because that would be true. But you said she hasn't taken ownership, and by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase and her comments she has done so, so that was false.

The acid test was the FBI interview.  How many times did she "forget" about what they were asking?  That, regardless of anything else, shows how much she's owned up to her actions here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The acid test was the FBI interview.  How many times did she "forget" about what they were asking?  That, regardless of anything else, shows how much she's owned up to her actions here.

So the "acid test" about whether she's "taken ownership" of something is not her public comments in which she explicitly takes ownership of it. No, it's the notes from an interview during a law enforcement investigation that she had no reason to believe would ever be made public. Sure

Keep on rockin', guys.  You're doing a bang-up job of proving me and the Post right so far.

 

[RCon]

As I noted in the Trump thread, Hillay has lost ground in most of the battleground states. As of this morning her lead in Pennsylvania has been cut in half. This is now a horse race. 

So, it's currently competitive against a guy who isn't even running a campaign?  Yet we should believe that the Democrats wouldn't have been better off with virtually anyone else (e.g. Sanders, Biden, random person off the street)?

 

[timschochet]

So, it's currently competitive against a guy who isn't even running a campaign?  Yet we should believe that the Democrats wouldn't have been better off with virtually anyone else (e.g. Sanders, Biden, random person off the street)?

Yes, that is what I believe. Obviously we'll never know, though after this is all over I'll certainly be open to evidence that this was not the case. 

Right now though I'm not even thinking about that. It's too late. We need all hands on deck. If you are a rational, thinking person who cares about this country, and if you live in a battleground state, I urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what you may think of her. If you don't, I'm not going to blame you if she loses; that won't be your responsibility. But please try to help her win. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

Yes, that is what I believe. Obviously we'll never know, though after this is all over I'll certainly be open to evidence that this was not the case. 

Right now though I'm not even thinking about that. It's too late. We need all hands on deck. If you are a rational, thinking person who cares about this country, and if you live in a battleground state, I urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what you may think of her. If you don't, I'm not going to blame you if she loses; that won't be your responsibility. But please try to help her win. 

I'm never with her.  She is a disgrace and I am embarrassed that she or Trump will be president.     

 

[TobiasFunke]

So, it's currently competitive against a guy who isn't even running a campaign?  Yet we should believe that the Democrats wouldn't have been better off with virtually anyone else (e.g. Sanders, Biden, random person off the street)?

This is kind of a silly argument, because the hypo is unknowable.  It's like ranting in the middle of the third quarter with the favorite leading by a touchdown that the game would be a blowout if they'd just played a different quarterback. There's just way too many variables at work here. 

 

[RCon]

Yes, that is what I believe. Obviously we'll never know, though after this is all over I'll certainly be open to evidence that this was not the case. 

What evidence would you consider?  All available evidence during the primaries was that Trump was much less competitive against Sanders than against Clinton, and you continually dismissed it.

Trump is literally not running a campaign.  He's not opening field offices, he's not buying TV ads.  He's not even trying to win, and yet, it's still too close for comfort.

Make no mistake, I still think Clinton wins this, and relatively easily, but Sanders or Biden would have absolutely destroyed Trump in a way we haven't sen since '84.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Ah,the "both are" argument in another form.

Actually there are degrees and spectrums across variables, not just binary options. Like, both are embarrassing, but one candidate is a complete joke.

But, they're both embarrassing, so Trump!

And before the "I'm not with Trump" card comes out, if the thing gets tight and Trump wins, non-Hillary voters go straight to the mirror. 

Countdown to: "It's the Hillary supporters fault, for getting her nominated." Please.

Most people in life deal with the reality of choices. It seems a lot of guys like to get wrapped up in principle, concocting mental gymnastics and being "above" the choices at hand. Get over it. 

 

[timschochet]

I'm never with her.  She is a disgrace and I am embarrassed that she or Trump will be president.     

Perhaps I can convince you? 

Put aside what you think of her for a moment. As I recall you were a big fan of Bernie.  His main issue is to get money out of politics. In order to accomplish that, Citizens United has to be overturned. The next President will choose the swing vote on the Supreme Court and probably at least one more SC judge as well. If you want to see CU have a chance at being reversed this is it, this is all you get. 

Bernie's second biggest issue was climate change. You may not trust Hillary on this issue, but surely she is preferable to Trump, at least she takes it seriously enough to try to do something. 

For these reasons alone I would think any true Bernie fan should support Hillary Clinton. 

 

[timschochet]

What evidence would you consider?  All available evidence during the primaries was that Trump was much less competitive against Sanders than against Clinton, and you continually dismissed it.

Trump is literally not running a campaign.  He's not opening field offices, he's not buying TV ads.  He's not even trying to win, and yet, it's still too close for comfort.

Make no mistake, I still think Clinton wins this, and relatively easily, but Sanders or Biden would have absolutely destroyed Trump in a way we haven't sen since '84.

As I said, I'll be happy to discuss this issue with you, in detail, on November 9. The evidence that could change my mind is exit polling- if a significant number of swing voters say that they were voting AGAINST Hillary rather than FOR Trump. If that happens I'll rethink it. But we won't know until then (and even then it's only speculative). 

 

[IC FBGCav]

Perhaps I can convince you? 

Put aside what you think of her for a moment. As I recall you were a big fan of Bernie.  His main issue is to get money out of politics. In order to accomplish that, Citizens United has to be overturned. The next President will choose the swing vote on the Supreme Court and probably at least one more SC judge as well. If you want to see CU have a chance at being reversed this is it, this is all you get. 

Bernie's second biggest issue was climate change. You may not trust Hillary on this issue, but surely she is preferable to Trump, at least she takes it seriously enough to try to do something. 

For these reasons alone I would think any true Bernie fan should support Hillary Clinton. 

Good effort but what she is going to do holds little weight when she does not have my trust.   Bernie genuinely gave a #### about people and that matters, maybe more than policy.   If you care you are less willing to just push a lobbyist's agenda and more apt to do what is best for all.    These other two don't give a ####, IMO.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

And by the way, if we're looking for Trump scapegoats here, I'd say pretty high up on the list are intelligent conservatives (ahem) who for years have tolerated the growing anti-science, anti-reason, pro-conspiracy theory fear-mongering faction of their party only to finally break with it when it fully arrived in the form of an orange-colored sack of bigotry and lies. 

There was nothing stopping them from leaving the party in large numbers and voting Democrat or third party when the GOP nominated Sarah Palin as their VP, or when they rejected climate change science, or when they cuddled up to the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world, or when they continued to reject common sense immigration reform, or when Mitt Romney declared in 2012 that "no one's ever asked to see my birth certificate; they know that this is the place that we were born and raised." But they didn't. They kept voting GOP because they still believed, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the party would somehow find their way back to "compassionate conservatism" and supply-side economics.

Before we go blaming Dem primary voters for increasing the chances of a Trump presidency by (gasp!) voting for the candidate they preferred, maybe we should blame the people who paved the way for Trump's candidacy by standing by a party who's been sounding like a slightly less stupid version of him for almost a decade.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What evidence would you consider?  All available evidence during the primaries was that Trump was much less competitive against Sanders than against Clinton, and you continually dismissed it.

Trump is literally not running a campaign.  He's not opening field offices, he's not buying TV ads.  He's not even trying to win, and yet, it's still too close for comfort.

Make no mistake, I still think Clinton wins this, and relatively easily, but Sanders or Biden would have absolutely destroyed Trump in a way we haven't sen since '84.

FWIW I've seen multiple Trump TV ads in the last few days.

 

[Guest]

Me: the criticisms are never about the actual words on the page.  They're always about histrionics and conspiracy theories.

Ham:



"Aggresive lawyering" might be my favorite part.  How dare a lawyer involved in a legal matter get all lawyer-y about stuff?  Scandalous!

Cheryl Mills was able to get DOJ to give her "Queen for a Day" immunity as if she were counsel, citing attorney client privileged, even though her primary role was as an aide with a material role in the case.  Then she played the "I don't recall card to boot."  Previously she failed to comply with FOIA requests for Hillary's private email accounts citing that no records were found.  Lying and then taking immunity for a role you're lying you had -- that's aggressive lawyering.   

 

[The Commish]

So, it's currently competitive against a guy who isn't even running a campaign?  Yet we should believe that the Democrats wouldn't have been better off with virtually anyone else (e.g. Sanders, Biden, random person off the street)?

This is kind of a silly argument, because the hypo is unknowable.  It's like ranting in the middle of the third quarter with the favorite leading by a touchdown that the game would be a blowout if they'd just played a different quarterback. There's just way too many variables at work here. 

To be fair to Rich....he didn't approach this as knowable.  He's asking how we are to BELIEVE that the Dems wouldn't have had a better shot.  This was the assertion front and center throughout the primaries.  I think it's fair game to bring it up in light of the facts that Trump is indeed not running any sort of campaign whatsoever and it's still competitive.  There's no ads.  There's no field offices, nada.  Please read my "no" in those two comments in the spirit of the conversation and not as "exactly zero"....tia.

 

[IC FBGCav]

FWIW I've seen multiple Trump TV ads in the last few days.

I have too, not many compared to HRC but there are more than one.

 

[Guest]

"She hasn't taken ownership of the email scandal."

"She has, repeatedly. Here's a quote where she literally says she takes responsibility for it and that it's her fault and hers alone."

"Well she hasn't used exactly the words I want her to use about particular details of the scandal, and also I don't trust her so I'm gonna say some random stuff about how she's still lying out of the other side of her mouth."

That's not how it works. You don't get to make the rules about what it means to "take ownership" of something.  If you want to say that she hasn't knocked on your door and personally answered every question you can come up with while massaging your feet and fetching you beers, then you should say she hasn't done that. Because that would be true. But you said she hasn't taken ownership, and by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase and her comments she has done so, so that was false.

Let's say someone raped a girl.  Prosecutor says there isn't evidence to pursue, though physical evidence suggests the rapist at least was highly aggressive and reckless in the physical encounter.  

Rapist says, "I take full responsibility.  But want to make it clear that she asked me to choke her, she loved it, and the prosecutor is way off base.  But I take full responsibility and hope we can move on.  I regret the bruises on her neck and bloody lip, but I did nothing wrong. But I take FULL responsibility."

 

[TobiasFunke]

Let's say someone raped a girl.  Prosecutor says there isn't evidence to pursue, though physical evidence suggests the rapist at least was highly aggressive and reckless in the physical encounter.  

Rapist says, "I take full responsibility.  But want to make it clear that she asked me to choke her, she loved it, and the prosecutor is way off base.  But I take full responsibility and hope we can move on.  I regret the bruises on her neck and bloody lip, but I did nothing wrong."

This is a terrible, terrible analogy.  One of the worst I've ever heard.  Not only is your choice of criminal behavior more than a little disturbing (you could have gone with literally any criminal act, and you chose rape), but not one word of it actually resembles what happened with Clinton's emails in any way.  This post is what run of the mill terrible message board analogies aspire to be. Nazi/Hitler analogies around the internet are in awe of the awfulness of this post.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think what's really funny reading through all this is how often we've been told 'nobody cares' over and over and over again. I think Squiz said this just a couple days ago.

Looks like people care quite a lot. This has been an issue about whether it is a substantive issue, whether it's a real issue, whether it's a campaign issue that even belongs in this thread. It matters, it matters a lot, and now word from on high is it matters too, too much. Fascinating.

That part of this 18 month long argument like a few other things is now settled.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good effort but what she is going to do holds little weight when she does not have my trust.   Bernie genuinely gave a #### about people and that matters, maybe more than policy.   If you care you are less willing to just push a lobbyist's agenda and more apt to do what is best for all.    These other two don't give a ####, IMO.  

Tim also regularly argues that corporations are constituents for Hillary and that selling access is ok in the marketplace which is politics.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Cheryl Mills was able to get DOJ to give her "Queen for a Day" immunity as if she were counsel, citing attorney client privileged, even though her primary role was as an aide with a material role in the case.  Then she played the "I don't recall card to boot."  Previously she failed to comply with FOIA requests for Hillary's private email accounts citing that no records were found.  Lying and then taking immunity for a role you're lying you had -- that's aggressive lawyering.   

This "non story" doesn't hold up to Occam's razor or just the average American BS detector.  

Simply, if this is no big deal, why did you lie about it and lie about for so long and generally still have a perception that this is still a half truth. 

Much as we were (correctly IMO) told that the Nixon impeachment was about the coverup and not the crime, in the ultimate gauntlet of optics, running for president, she seems to be stunningly full of crap

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How the mighty have fallen.  All this says is that a once proud institution that truly stepped out and brought in the biggest stories of government corruption (Deep Throat, etc.) has fallen into political line.  Just another soldier in the 4th estate army for the DNC now.

RIP Washington Post.

Well what's also been pretty funny is they have done a good deal of fine reporting on this story.

People need to keep in mind that WaPo like all newspapers has a three way split in hierarchy:

- Reporters - they do their thing.

- Editorial - living above it all and pretty out of touch but they feel pressure from owners, politicians, marketing. Typically they are on a political side one way or the other, that's why there are weird headlines that don't match stories, important paragraphs taken out, vague wordsings often, etc. That's the editors and that's who wrote this tripe today.

- Ownership. They influence editors and they can make coverage turn on a dime or even turn off completely. They are often in touch with politicians and their teams by phone or in person or email.

This is true in all towns, DC is not an exception. I will choose the reporting of the WaPo over their editors.

 

[CBusAlex]

FWIW I've seen multiple Trump TV ads in the last few days.

I'm assuming these are aired in Virginia as well, but it would be funny if the only place Trump was actually running ads was DC.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Comparing HRC to a rapist? The over the top rhetoric has been discussed upthread and it doesn't help the cause. It drowns out the act and as a result people tune out. An example of this is the Crooked Hillary/Lock Her Up stuff. Instead of focusing on the issue, it became angry chanting, and comparisons to violent criminals. This isn't rational, and it turns people off to the entire issue.

 

[urbanhack]

Perhaps I can convince you? 

Put aside what you think of her for a moment. As I recall you were a big fan of Bernie.  His main issue is to get money out of politics. In order to accomplish that, Citizens United has to be overturned. The next President will choose the swing vote on the Supreme Court and probably at least one more SC judge as well. If you want to see CU have a chance at being reversed this is it, this is all you get. 

Bernie's second biggest issue was climate change. You may not trust Hillary on this issue, but surely she is preferable to Trump, at least she takes it seriously enough to try to do something. 

For these reasons alone I would think any true Bernie fan should support Hillary Clinton. 

Ummmm.  no, that's quite a stretch.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm assuming these are aired in Virginia as well, but it would be funny if the only place Trump was actually running ads was DC.

Yeah, and they were during sports so I assume the intended audience was middle aged white guys in Virginia. They had minority actors and everything, though!  Also they actually looked like decent generic national general election campaign ads, condemning the opponent while striking a hopeful note for all Americans in the utopia of a future Trump presidency. The only thing jarring about them was Trump's image and voice at the end.  I honestly was kind of expecting public access-quality production.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Well what's also been pretty funny is they have done a good deal of fine reporting on this story.

People need to keep in mind that WaPo like all newspapers has a three way split in hierarchy:

- Reporters - they do their thing.

- Editorial - living above it all and pretty out of touch but they feel pressure from owners, politicians, marketing. Typically they are on a political side one way or the other, that's why there are weird headlines that don't match stories, important paragraphs taken out, vague wordsings often, etc. That's teh editors and that's who wrote this tripe today.

- Ownership. They influence editors and they can make coverage turn on a dime or even turn off completely. They are often in touch with politicians and their teams by phone or in person or email.

This is true in all towns, DC is not an exception. I will choose the reporting of the WaPo over their editors.

FWIW the exact same editorial board has killed her for the email stuff before. Their point here isn't that it's a non-story.  The point is that the coverage and attention has now reached the point that it's wildly out of proportion with the misdeed and it's threatening to divert attention from far more important stories.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Investigation indicated that on March 25, 2015, PRN held a conference call with
President Clinton' staff. REDACTED In his interviews with the FBI,indicated that sometime
between March 25-31, 2015, he realized he did not make the e-mail retention policy changes to
Clinton' clintonemail.com e-mail account that Mills had requested in December 2014. 371 In his
FBI interview on February 18, 2016 indicated that he did not recall conducting
deletions based upon this realization.

In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016 REDACTED 
indicated [B][COLOR=#ff0000]he believed he had an "oh sh|t" moment and sometime between [U]March 25-31[/U], 2015[/COLOR][/B]
deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server [B]and used BleachBit to delete the
exported .PST files[/B] he had created on the server system containing Clinton' e-mails. 373 
Investigation found evidence of these deletions 374 and determined the Datto backups of the PRN
Server were also manually deleted during this timeframe.375 [COLOR=#ff0000][B]Investigation identified a PRN work
ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on [U]March 31[/U],
2015.[/B][/COLOR] [B]R[/B]EDACTED's attorney advised not to comment on the conversation with Kendall[B]
based upon the assertion of the attomey-client privilege.[/B] 378

Investigation identified a[B] March 9, 2015 e-mail to PRN from Mills, of which REDACTED 
was a recipient referencing the preservation request[/B] from the Committee on 136
Benghazi. REDACTED advised [COLOR=#0000cd][B]during his February 18, 2016 interview[/B][/COLOR] that he did [COLOR=#0000cd][B]not [/B][/COLOR]recall 
seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail. 381 [COLOR=#0000cd][B]During his May 3,
2016 interview REDACTED indicated that[/B][/COLOR], at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, [B][COLOR=#0000cd]he
was aware of the existence of the preservation request[/COLOR][/B] and the fact that it meant he should not
disturb Clinton' e-mail data on the PRN Server. REDACTED also stated during this interview,
he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, 5 legal counsel, or others regarding
the meaning of the preservation request. 383 Mills stated she was unaware that REDACTED had
conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015. 384 Clinton stated she was also
unaware of the March 2015 e-mail deletions by PRN.385

So:

Just 3 weeks AFTER the NYT ran its story about Hillary's email system, just 2 weeks after Hillary had her press conference at the UN and after Congress had issued a subpoena and preservation order to Hillary:

- 3/25/15 - Hillary's staff has a call with Platte River (PRN), the vendor managing the emails.

- Between 3/25 through 3/31/15 - ALL the emails including backups are deleted.

- 3/31/15 the vendor has another call with Clintons staff.

The guy who was handling the data - REDACTED - lied to the FBI THREE times about this sequence of events in THREE separate interviews.

Well, well, if it isn't Mr. REDACTED:


Computer Specialist Who Deleted Hillary's Emails Granted Immunity by Justice Dept

 

[Jrodicus]

Seems to me that pretty much every time a right or GOP or Trump-friendly editorial is posted, many of the criticisms of it focus on the actual content, challenging actual facts and points and logic found in the piece itself.  Meanwhile, pretty much every time a left or Dem or Clinton-friendly editorial is posted, the responses are all empty histrionics and conspiracy theories. 

I wonder why that is.

I've seen recent poll numbers that show Trump/Hillary in a dead heat questioned as fraudulent and an effort to keep the media circus going.  Does that count?

 

[squistion]

I think what's really funny reading through all this is how often we've been told 'nobody cares' over and over and over again. I think Squiz said this just a couple days ago.

Looks like people care quite a lot. This has been an issue about whether it is a substantive issue, whether it's a real issue, whether it's a campaign issue that even belongs in this thread. It matters, it matters a lot, and now word from on high is it matters too, too much. Fascinating.

That part of this 18 month long argument like a few other things is now settled.

You care, Mr. Ham cares and the other resident Hillary haters care but most people really don't care about this and at this point they are not paying attention to it any more. You can keep banging your drum and posting your 10 email related articles a day and telling everyone how important this is, but you are just preaching to the choir.

 

[IC FBGCav]

You care, Mr. Ham cares and the other resident Hillary haters care but most people really don't care about this and at this point they are not paying attention to it any more. You can keep banging your drum and posting your 10 email related articles a day and telling everyone how important this is, but you are just preaching to the choir.

But is the choir singing?

 

[The Commish]

I think what's really funny reading through all this is how often we've been told 'nobody cares' over and over and over again. I think Squiz said this just a couple days ago.

Looks like people care quite a lot. This has been an issue about whether it is a substantive issue, whether it's a real issue, whether it's a campaign issue that even belongs in this thread. It matters, it matters a lot, and now word from on high is it matters too, too much. Fascinating.

That part of this 18 month long argument like a few other things is now settled.

Whatever you do, don't ask him for proof of "nobody cares".  That's like Independent George and Relationship George meeting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

FWIW the exact same editorial board has killed her for the email stuff before. Their point here isn't that it's a non-story.  The point is that the coverage and attention has now reached the point that it's wildly out of proportion with the misdeed and it's threatening to divert attention from far more important stories.

It's kind of driving itself though. News is driven by events.

- The revelation by the NYT.

- The UN press conference.

- The server is taken.

- The vendors.

- The document rollout.

- Immunity is granted.

- Hillary & staff are interviewed 

- The Comey presser & testimony.

- Now it's the FBI interview notes & the report.

- In between many of these Hillary has said weird and often untrue things.

- Now we learn there was another witness given immunity.

- Now more documents in the thousands will be rolled out.

The reporters are going to report and the people are going to react.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's kind of driving itself though. News is driven by events.

- The revelation by the NYT.

- The UN press conference.

- The server is taken.

- The vendors.

- The document rollout.

- Immunity is granted.

- Hillary & staff are interviewed 

- The Comey presser & testimony.

- Now it's the FBI interview notes & the report.

- In between many of these Hillary has said weird and often untrue things.

- Now we learn there was another witness given immunity.

- Now more documents in the thousands will be rolled out.

The reporters are going to report and the people are going to react.

1.  IMO there have been no interesting revelations about this at least since the FBI interview notes, and maybe since the Comey hearing.

2.  Even if that were not the case, Donald Trump has said and done at least a dozen things since Comey's hearing that are far more troubling, and none has received a fraction of the media attention and follow-up.  That is the point of the editorial.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I've seen recent poll numbers that show Trump/Hillary in a dead heat questioned as fraudulent and an effort to keep the media circus going.  Does that count?

Does that count as what?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1.  IMO there have been no interesting revelations about this at least since the FBI interview notes, and maybe since the Comey hearing.

2.  Even if that were not the case, Donald Trump has said and done at least a dozen things since Comey's hearing that are far more troubling, and none has received a fraction of the media attention and follow-up.  That is the point of the editorial.

On point 1 I'm gonna say the revelation of destruction of records after subpoena was a shock to me. 

I agree with point 2 completely. And I think there was another piece that said 'oh hey why isn't Donald Trump known as the corrupt candidate?' I agree. I just have a couple other points about that:

- corruption is a prostitute/john situation, there is no corrupt buyer without the seller. If Trump was buying I want to know who was selling, and I'm not just talking about Bondi.

- Trump himself said he gave money to Hillary to help his overseas business. I'd like to hear WaPo or any other news agency ask him about that more. How did that work exactly? Or pick any R/D candidate he gave to, when he says he was a player in the system let's hear some details.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton’s Emails


WASHINGTON — A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.

...

Mr. Combetta is one of at least two people who were given immunity by the Justice Department as part of the investigation. The other was Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.

The F.B.I. described the deletions by Mr. Combetta in a summary of its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s account that was released last Friday. The documents blacked out the specialist’s name, but the law enforcement official and others familiar with the case identified the employee as Mr. Combetta. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing matters that were supposed to remain confidential.

...

The House oversight committee has asked officials from Platte River Networks, Mr. Combetta and others to appear at a hearing before his committee on Tuesday about how the email account was set up and how the messages were deleted.

According to the F.B.I. documents, Mr. Combetta told the bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the emails. But in May, he told a different story.

In the days after Mrs. Clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said.

In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=1

- IMO previously I have said that the deletions were a violation of civil law, not criminal law and per Comey the FBI does not investigate civil law violations, only criminal.

But with this I've changed my mind.

Anybody want to explain why a crime was not committed her considering the DOJ granted immunity from criminal prosecution to the man who actually pulled the levers in doing so?

 

[pettifogger]

A lot of these stories lack the kind of detail I would want to see -- what was the scope of the preservation order, did it extend to work emails only or to all emails and therefore to the ones that were sorted as private?  It sounds as if Cheryl Mills did what she was supposed to do and sent the order to the custodian of records.  From what I have read elsewhere, the BleachBit guy says he acted on his own and not per anyone's request.  It also makes me wonder whether criminal obstruction of justice charges can arise, or only contempt of Congress proceedings, for deleting requested records (if they were responsive to the subpoena).      

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A lot of these stories lack the kind of detail I would want to see -- what was the scope of the preservation order, did it extend to work emails only or to all emails and therefore to the ones that were sorted as private?  It sounds as if Cheryl Mills did what she was supposed to do and sent the order to the custodian of records.  From what I have read elsewhere, the BleachBit guy says he acted on his own and not per anyone's request.  It also makes me wonder whether criminal obstruction of justice charges can arise, or only contempt of Congress proceedings, for deleting requested records (if they were responsive to the subpoena).      

The notes from the FBI are above:

he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton' e-mail data on the PRN Server

There was a call with the Clinton staff when he started (March 25th) and there was a call with the Clinton staff when he finished (March 31st).

 

[pettifogger]

This is my take on the email stuff.  First, the State Dept. has a cable system for dispatches from the field, the type of stuff that is normally classified.  (The one Manning and Assange breached and resulted in 200K cables being published, which does not get talked about much anymore.)  Second, the SoS gets CIA briefings that are hand delivered, with oral reports, and then taken back physically.  I don't think Clinton thought anything classified would be sent or received by emai in the first place, and did not think it would even be an issue.  The FBI notes seem to indicate there was no discussion about avoiding FOIA requests, it was just more mundane considerations about whether emails could piggyback on a government device or whether two devices were needed.  It still appears to be true that nothing marked classified in the traditional way (headers and footers denoting status) was ever sent or received, instead we have the government retroactively classifying quite broadly. I doubt Clinton thought much about how emails are transferred or stored any more than I think about how the carburetor works when I turn the key (nowadays, push the button) on my car.  

There has been some ridiculous overreach by Congressional Republicans -- suggesting that she perjured herself by saying she only used one device but she had replacements.  If I say I only use one desktop at home and one at work, it is not perjury because I replaced the work one last year.  If I say I did not send anything classified, it is not perjury because the government later retroactively classified some part of it.  

Should she have kept a private email address and an official one -- sure.  But I keep home and work email addresses, and even that does not solve problems of cross-pollination, if a work contact gets my home address in their glossary of addresses, I inevitably end up with emails in the wrong account.  Since Clinton probably has 100 or 1000 times more people in her email contact list, I am not sure that would have solved the problem.  

Should she have separated emails accounts?  Of course, if only to avoid the giant distraction this has become, that she obviously did not anticipate.  But as I recall under Bush 43, quite a number of Executive Branch officials did their business over RNC servers and failed to retain records.  It does not seem that it was such an obvious issue then as it is now, with the benefit of hindsight.

Here's a take on the FBI notes from a liberal view, Kevin Drum in Mother Jones:   

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary-clintons-email        

Here is a less sympathetic take, from Jeff Stein at Vox (note the parenthetical comments where he draws back a little:   

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/6/12774948/fbi-hillary-clinton-report            

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Quote
Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday.

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.



 


Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/gowdy-clinton-wiped-her-server-clean-116472.html#ixzz3VdHcUdMR

- So Kendall's letter was on March 27th.

Mr. Redacted at Platte River began deleting on March 25th after his call with the Clinton staff.