Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[jon_mx]

Well if someone at the Daily Kos believes Hillary.....: rolleyes:

Ok, so then you must believe that "The Clintons were able to convince a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators to lie to the Supreme Court in early 2013 so Hillary could have a better answer two-and-a-half years later about why her husband signed DOMA nearly twenty years earlier..."

Like the same Senators who said that Republicans wanted grandma to eat dog food because they wanted to slow the growth of government spending. Yes they were engaging in fear-mongering rhetoric. In other words they were full of #### if that went over your head.

 

[squistion]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/poll-democrats-2016-new-hampshire-215473

Clinton overtakes Sanders in N.H. poll

Hillary Clinton now holds a 3 percentage-point lead over Bernie Sanders among likely Democratic voters in the first primary state of New Hampshire, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Tuesday.

The former secretary of state jumped 7 points from the September poll, to 48 percent, while Sanders dropped 4 points, to 45 percent. (Those figures redistributed support from erstwhile candidates Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb, and Vice President Joe Biden, who declined to enter the race.)

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley took just 3 percent, and Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig, who announced Monday that he was ending his campaign, earned 1 percent.

A little more than three months ahead of the first-in-the-nation primary, just 3 percent said they were undecided among the candidates.

A little more than one-third of those who participated in the survey 35 percent said they are completely decided on their choice, while 38 percent said they have a strong preference but are willing to consider other candidates in the mix. Among Clinton voters, 39 percent said they are completely decided and 37 percent said they strongly prefer their candidate but are willing to consider another, compared with 34 percent of Sanders voters who said they are totally committed and 43 percent who indicated a strong commitment but also left the door open to considering an alternative.

 

[RCon]

She wins a medal for evasiveness, that's for sure.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

I vaguely remember there was some talk on the right at that time about a Constitutional amendment if DOMA didn't pass, but I don't recall how seriously it was taken. However a Daily Kos diary seems to think that there is some validity to Hillary's statement:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/27/1440473/-Sorry-Bernie-DOMA-Really-Was-a-Defensive-Action-Against-a-Possible-Constitutional-Amendment

Sorry, Bernie: DOMA Really Was a Defensive Action Against a Possible Constitutional Amendment

[...]

Anyway, could it really be that Hillary Clinton is suddenly rewriting the history of DOMA to make herself and her husband look better for this campaign?

The answer is no...and there's proof.

Bill Clinton agonized about his decision for years, and in a March 2013 Washington Post op-ed entitled "It's Time to Overturn DOMA" he wrote:

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more." It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

Sure enough, there is indeed a March 1st 2013 Supreme Court amicus brief from former Democratic Senators Bill Bradley, Tom Daschle and Chris Dodd, as well as former Republican Senator Alan Simpson. There's some good overall background on DOMA from their perspective as 1996 lawmakers if you feel like reading the whole thing, but here is the relevant section:

The statute enjoyed broad bipartisan support, but the reasons for that support varied widely. Some supported DOMA even while staunchly opposing discrimination against gays in employment, adoption, military service, and other spheres. Some believed that DOMA was necessary to allay fears that a single states recognition of same-sex marriage could automatically extend to all other states through the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And they believed that enacting DOMA would eliminate the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriagean outcome that would have terminated any further debate about same-sex marriage, potentially for generations. At the same time, even for many who generally opposed sexual orientation discrimination, the traditional conception of marriage was so engrained that it was difficult to see the true nature of the discrimination DOMA wrought.

The way I see it, there are only a couple of possibilities here.Either the Clintons were able to convince a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators to lie to the Supreme Court in early 2013 so Hillary could have a better answer two-and-a-half years later about why her husband signed DOMA nearly twenty years earlier...

...or maybe, just maybe...Hillary is telling the truth.

This reminds me exactly of the argument about why Hillary claims she supported the flag burning banning law.

I don't get it. If Hillary is "so good," she could have voted back in June to support the FBA (instead of voting against it). Remember: FBA missed passage by just one vote. Where were you, Hillary? Better yet: Where are you really coming from?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/08/16/237314/-Hillary-and-the-Flag-Burning-Amendment

- 2006

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's a golden oldie from Daily Kos:

Hillary's actions sicken me. They sicken me because they are tinged with fascism, the silencing of dissent, and the homogenization of our attitude towards the government. This is a dangerous trend. Hearing about this, as well as the ACLU stepping up for a student's right to sit down during the pledge, infuriates me.

She can kick out protesters from her meetings, she can ban flag-burning, and she can court all the damn NASCAR votes she wants, but she just lost any chance at my vote. ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/05/169786/-Hillary-Flag-Burning-and-a-Mini-Rant

- 2005

 

[Trey]

We onto the general yet?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We onto the general yet?

Shhhh, Hillary discourages that sort of thing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well if someone at the Daily Kos believes Hillary.....: rolleyes:

Ok, so then you must believe that "The Clintons were able to convince a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators to lie to the Supreme Court in early 2013 so Hillary could have a better answer two-and-a-half years later about why her husband signed DOMA nearly twenty years earlier..."

"Eliminating the possibility" is a far cry from a real threat to an actual constitutional Amendment

There was no actual threat of an Amendment that would be passed/adopted in 75% of the states.

Now I think justifying Clinton signing this inexcusable piece of legislation based on this threat is revisionist history, but I think there would have been plenty of votes for such an amendment if, for example the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected their state constitutional amendment "fixed" Baehr. It didn't happen largely because legislatures, politicians did their best to avoid such a vote on the record, Nothing forced their hands...

 

[squistion]

This reminds me exactly of the argument about why Hillary claims she supported the flag burning banning law.

Not really analogous. And not an issue that was used against Hillary among Democrats in 2008 for that reason. The entire purpose of the FBA was to have Democrats be on record as voting against prohibiting flag desecration, which would used against them in 2006 by Republicans. So, the vote on the federal law was viewed as a pragmatic preemptive move to help Democrats who had put between a rock and a hard place. :http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html

"What's politically pragmatic isn't always what's pleasing to the left," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. "But pragmatism is what wins elections for Democrats."

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, gave Mrs. Clinton credit for trying to give Democrats a viable alternative to amending the Constitution to ban flag desecration.

"This is an effort to try to take into account the people on the left by narrowing" the proposal, Mr. Frank said. "I still disagree with it. But it's clearly a move away from the constitutional amendment, rather than toward it."

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and a former presidential nominee, voted for the measure, which closely resembled past efforts to pre-empt an amendment to the Constitution. Democrats who voted for the measure in effect bought themselves the right to claim that they had voted against flag desecration, potentially inoculating themselves against possible charges of lacking patriotism in a general election campaign. The broader measure to amend the Constitution failed by a single vote, 66 to 34.

 

[Mister CIA]

We onto the general yet?

Can't wait for the Jazz Fusion Odyssey.

 

[Sand]

Sorry, Bernie: DOMA Really Was a Defensive Action Against a Possible Constitutional Amendment

[...]

Anyway, could it really be that Hillary Clinton is suddenly rewriting the history of DOMA to make herself and her husband look better for this campaign?

The answer is no...and there's proof.

When is the last time we had an amendment or a serious attempt at a congress to begin that process? This is a huge, smelly pile.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This reminds me exactly of the argument about why Hillary claims she supported the flag burning banning law.

Not really analogous. And not an issue that was used against Hillary among Democrats in 2008 for that reason. The entire purpose of the FBA was to have Democrats be on record as voting against prohibiting flag desecration, which would used against them in 2006 by Republicans. So, the vote on the federal law was viewed as a pragmatic preemptive move to help Democrats who had put between a rock and a hard place. :http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html

"What's politically pragmatic isn't always what's pleasing to the left," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. "But pragmatism is what wins elections for Democrats."

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, gave Mrs. Clinton credit for trying to give Democrats a viable alternative to amending the Constitution to ban flag desecration.

"This is an effort to try to take into account the people on the left by narrowing" the proposal, Mr. Frank said. "I still disagree with it. But it's clearly a move away from the constitutional amendment, rather than toward it."

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and a former presidential nominee, voted for the measure, which closely resembled past efforts to pre-empt an amendment to the Constitution. Democrats who voted for the measure in effect bought themselves the right to claim that they had voted against flag desecration, potentially inoculating themselves against possible charges of lacking patriotism in a general election campaign. The broader measure to amend the Constitution failed by a single vote, 66 to 34.

Not used against her by whom? Obama? I think progressives/liberals remembered judging by DK.

Further from that NYT piece:

Ms. Huffington was not mollified. "It seems in line with her stance on so many issues — trying to strike right in the middle and triangulate, by not supporting the amendment because that would upset the base too much and at the same time supporting a legislative proposal that will appeal to the center," she said of Mrs. Clinton. "It's a truly tragic way of leading."

Hillary cosponsored the flag banning law.

This goes to the heart of why I oppose her. She tries to have it both ways on issues of pure principle. Her bill was an attempt to reintroduce into Federal law a question that was supposedly decided, correctly, by the Johnson decision of 1989. How did she get to the right of Antonin Scalia? Well, that's politics, dear.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/14/410201/-Hillary-and-Flag-Burning#

Looking at Kerry signing on if anything this presaged the Iraq War vote, where some Democrats actually give Hillary a pass because she felt she would have been burnt by the vote later politically. That's really the point you know.

 

[jon_mx]

Doesn't matter.how big of a deuce Hillary drops, squisy happily gobbles it up every time.

 

[jon_mx]

Doesn't matter.how big of a deuce Hillary drops, squisy happily gobbles it up every time.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I would not get too worked up over the polls - I think they are extremely unreliable this year - not in any direction, I just don't think they are representative of the electorate.

Last two polls this week for Kentucky Governor had Democrat Jack Conway up 5 points - he lost by 9 points.

 

[timschochet]

I would not get too worked up over the polls - I think they are extremely unreliable this year - not in any direction, I just don't think they are representative of the electorate.

Last two polls this week for Kentucky Governor had Democrat Jack Conway up 5 points - he lost by 9 points.

You were quick to cite them when Bernie was ahead. The matchup polls aren't reliable IMO but the rest are. Still, things could easily change.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I would not get too worked up over the polls - I think they are extremely unreliable this year - not in any direction, I just don't think they are representative of the electorate.

Last two polls this week for Kentucky Governor had Democrat Jack Conway up 5 points - he lost by 9 points.

You were quick to cite them when Bernie was ahead.The matchup polls aren't reliable IMO but the rest are. Still, things could easily change.

No - I really don't think the polls are reliable (That is not to say Sanders is winning - but the margin is much closer I think). I don't think the people responding to the calls are representative of the electorate. The two Kentucky governor polls were not match-up polls - and they were taken last week - so its a big swing from 5 points up to 9 points down - that is not margin of error - that is flawed polling information.

Bernie has only ever been ahead in New Hampshire - and I think he wins New Hampshire easily - less because of the polls, and more because of the neighboring state status.

Interesting that you mention the matchup polls - because that is the only polling where Sanders is beating Clinton...

 

[RCon]

I don't think most polls are reliable at all.

 

[Sand]

I don't think most polls are reliable at all.

Nate Silver just had a heart attack.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I don't think most polls are reliable at all.

Nate Silver just had a heart attack.

I like a lot of his work - I am a data geek. But I do have the sense that in this era the ability to collect and model accurate data is extremely difficult.

I think the issues really are two fold - the people answering these polling call are not a representative sample of the public at large, and then the modeling that is done to the data to try an mimic expected voters is off.

My guess is that in future election polling, the "experts" will be looking back to this cycle and trying to identify better markers - trying to correlate things like number of followers on social media, and measure the velocity of engagement on those platforms as a gauge for actual support - at least within certain age-groups. Right now, there is not enough data to make an accurate determination, but when the dust settles next fall (or maybe even after the primaries) - smart people will be looking at new metrics rather than the same polling methods that have been around for decades.

 

[cubd8]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

That's what I thought....TGunz struggling with reading comprehension again.

Hes laughing at those who think I'm a progressive.

Unless you simply do not believe most of what she is saying, which makes her a liar, how could you not be supporting her? She's been as far to the left, if not more, although I'm sure it's because she is trying to outflank him.

I just don't see the conviction here on most anything. It's ok to change your mind, but she seems to have changed her mind over and over.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think most polls are reliable at all.

Nate Silver just had a heart attack.

I like a lot of his work - I am a data geek. But I do have the sense that in this era the ability to collect and model accurate data is extremely difficult.

I think the issues really are two fold - the people answering these polling call are not a representative sample of the public at large, and then the modeling that is done to the data to try an mimic expected voters is off.

My guess is that in future election polling, the "experts" will be looking back to this cycle and trying to identify better markers - trying to correlate things like number of followers on social media, and measure the velocity of engagement on those platforms as a gauge for actual support - at least within certain age-groups. Right now, there is not enough data to make an accurate determination, but when the dust settles next fall (or maybe even after the primaries) - smart people will be looking at new metrics rather than the same polling methods that have been around for decades.

First thing they need to do is identify all those who still use rotary phones, then never call them again.

 

[The Commish]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

That's what I thought....TGunz struggling with reading comprehension again.

Hes laughing at those who think I'm a progressive.

Unless you simply do not believe most of what she is saying, which makes her a liar, how could you not be supporting her? She's been as far to the left, if not more, although I'm sure it's because she is trying to outflank him.

I just don't see the conviction here on most anything. It's ok to change your mind, but she seems to have changed her mind over and over.

She (Hillary?) isn't close to outflanking him (Bernie?) to the left. Her record proves that. I think we can all agree on that, right?

 

[timschochet]

Wait, Tim isn't backing Hillary?

I am.

That's what I thought....TGunz struggling with reading comprehension again.

Hes laughing at those who think I'm a progressive.

Unless you simply do not believe most of what she is saying, which makes her a liar, how could you not be supporting her? She's been as far to the left, if not more, although I'm sure it's because she is trying to outflank him.

I just don't see the conviction here on most anything. It's ok to change your mind, but she seems to have changed her mind over and over.

I don't quite understand your question. I am supporting Hillary because she is closest to my own views on several of the issues I find most important, and because in this current cycle she remains the closest thing to a central, electable "establishment" candidate, and I am for that.

 

[dhockster]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Is there a point where her lying about things just to get elected makes you think that maybe she's lying to cover things up in some of her scandals, such as the email server issue?

See for me, personally, I have a hard time relying on her word that she didn't do anything wrong in these scandals when she has been known to lie about others things just to show herself in the best possible light.

 

[timschochet]

I should add that, given my strong feelings about illegal immigration, the Middle East, and climate change (probably the issues most important to me right now) Id be hard pressed to vote for any Republican in the foreseeable future. My disagreements with the GOP on these three issues is so profound that it's putting me pretty solidly in the Democratic camp- for now.

 

[timschochet]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Is there a point where her lying about things just to get elected makes you think that maybe she's lying to cover things up in some of her scandals, such as the email server issue?

See for me, personally, I have a hard time relying on her word that she didn't do anything wrong in these scandals when she has been known to lie about others things just to show herself in the best possible light.

Not really. My problem with most of these scandals, particularly those involving her emails and the Clinton Foundation, is that too many other people have to be involved for the conspiracy to have worked, and when you break it down it just doesn't make any sense. FWIW that's my problem with most conspiracy theories.

 

[dhockster]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Is there a point where her lying about things just to get elected makes you think that maybe she's lying to cover things up in some of her scandals, such as the email server issue?

See for me, personally, I have a hard time relying on her word that she didn't do anything wrong in these scandals when she has been known to lie about others things just to show herself in the best possible light.

Not really.My problem with most of these scandals, particularly those involving her emails and the Clinton Foundation, is that too many other people have to be involved for the conspiracy to have worked, and when you break it down it just doesn't make any sense. FWIW that's my problem with most conspiracy theories.

That has validity. I just think that the Clinton's are very good at profiting those who they rely on so that they stay loyal throughout these scandals. These people know that if they turn on the Clintons, their gravy train is over no matter what immunity they get. If they stay loyal, and make it through the scandal, the Clintons will take care of them when everything has blown over.

The fact that the Clintons were having some of these people paid by the government, by the foundation, and by the Clintons personally, really smacks of an inappropriate working relationship, to me, at least. That makes me question the whole situation.

 

[squistion]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/hillary-clinton-leads-south-carolina-winthrop-november?utm_content=buffer45564&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Poll Finds Clinton With Wide Lead In South Carolina Democratic Primary

Hillary Clinton has established a wide lead among likely Democratic voters in South Carolina, according to new poll released by Winthrop University.

Clinton received 71 percent of Democrats' support, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) received 15 percent and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley received 2 percent.

In a September poll conducted by CBS/You Gov found Clinton with a smaller lead of just 23 points over Sanders.

Winthrop surveyed 832 South Carolina voters likely to vote in the Democratic primary via phone Oct. 24-Nov. 1 with a margin of error plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

 

[RCon]

In the Rachel Maddow interview, Hillary explained that she and Bill supported DOMA because they were afraid of a Constitutional amendment. There appears to be no evidence of that threat or that fear in the records of the time.

So this is yet another unfortunate lie on their part. Hillary is looking for LGBT support, and money, so she made this up. So unnecessary. What would be wrong with saying, "Yeah I was for it at the time; I was mistaken, I've come to realize that now." ? Who would have cared?

This probably won't hurt her. But it disgusts me. I support Hillaey because I think she'll make the best President, but I really wish she and her husband would stop making #### up.

Is there a point where her lying about things just to get elected makes you think that maybe she's lying to cover things up in some of her scandals, such as the email server issue?

See for me, personally, I have a hard time relying on her word that she didn't do anything wrong in these scandals when she has been known to lie about others things just to show herself in the best possible light.

Not really.My problem with most of these scandals, particularly those involving her emails and the Clinton Foundation, is that too many other people have to be involved for the conspiracy to have worked, and when you break it down it just doesn't make any sense. FWIW that's my problem with most conspiracy theories.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? Peddling influence for money requires only Hillary herself to be involved (maybe Bill, if you want to call it two). Deleting e-mails that should have been kept requires exactly one person, Hillary herself.

 

[timschochet]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

 

[squistion]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

I am picturing her sitting in front of her computer, going through 100,000+ emails one by one and selectively hitting the delete button.

 

[RCon]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

I am picturing her sitting in front of her computer, going through 100,000+ emails one by one and selectively hitting the delete button.

So you're suggesting she didn't read her e-mails when they arrived and delete some after reading? You know, like every other person on the planet does?

 

[RCon]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

 

[squistion]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

I am picturing her sitting in front of her computer, going through 100,000+ emails one by one and selectively hitting the delete button.

So you're suggesting she didn't read her e-mails when they arrived and delete some after reading? You know, like every other person on the planet does?

No, I am not suggesting that. I was responding to the above bolded, that someone had "to go through" (thousands of emails) "and determine which were public and which were not," and I found it laughable that Hillary would have done that herself, rather than delegating it to her attorneys.

 

[timschochet]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

 

[The Commish]

I'll give Hillary credit on this email thing....she's done a wonderful job keeping the focus on email content. Such a waste of time for the boobs on the right but they aren't smart enough to see that apparently.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Former Presidents With Criminal Records Hillary Clinton bravely defends a disadvantaged class.In a little-watched speech at an NAACP banquet in Charleston, South Carolina on Friday, Hillary Clinton addressed “the box”—the section on job applications that requires applicants to indicate whether they have a criminal record. Specifically, she boldly (?) claimed that under an HRC presidency, “former presidents won’t have to declare their criminal history at the very start of the hiring process.”

...

http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2015/11/hillary_clinton_criminal_records_former_secretary_defends_rights_of_former.html

 

[jon_mx]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

You still don't get it. Just the fact that Hillary did sensitive business which related to national security and national interest on a computer which was easily hackable shows at the very minimum a complete incompetence and a total disregard for protecting vital information. I have no idea what formal approval she received to do what she did, but the level of classified information she had on her personal computer makes it criminal in itself.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

...

It's one of the Clintons' capital achievements that they have driven liberals, progressives, and Democrats, and many independents, to defend things that are antithetical to their beliefs. Par for the course.

Public records laws are one of the hallmarks of liberal and reform achievement in the US. With Hillary they are sent to the shredder.

Tim though doesn't hold corruption highly in his ranking of greatness or achievement in politicians. It's not a factor for him at all really.

 

[squistion]

Former Presidents With Criminal Records Hillary Clinton bravely defends a disadvantaged class.

In a little-watched speech at an NAACP banquet in Charleston, South Carolina on Friday, Hillary Clinton addressed the boxthe section on job applications that requires applicants to indicate whether they have a criminal record. Specifically, she boldly (?) claimed that under an HRC presidency, former presidents wont have to declare their criminal history at the very start of the hiring process.

...

http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2015/11/hillary_clinton_criminal_records_former_secretary_defends_rights_of_former.html

Always looking out for Bill, isn't she?

Hilarious slip of the tongue, she meant to say former "prisoners" instead of presidents.

 

[timschochet]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

You still don't get it. Just the fact that Hillary did sensitive business which related to national security and national interest on a computer which was easily hackable shows at the very minimum a complete incompetence and a total disregard for protecting vital information. I have no idea what formal approval she received to do what she did, but the level of classified information she had on her personal computer makes it criminal in itself.

See there's no good way to respond to this.

To answer your question, yes I get it. She shouldn't have combined private with business emails. It created a whole lot of problems. It was a bad mistake, I doubt it was hers (though she is responsible). But there is no scandal here, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

With regard top influence peddling, you're quite correct: a lot of politicians do it. Mostly Congressmen and Senators, because they're the ones who are proposing, passing, or killing bills.

But for a Secretary of State to influence peddle is much more problematic, because she's dealing with thousands of bureaucrats that she did not hire. These long time civil servants are operating on long term policies which have very little to do with whether or not the administration is currently Republican or Democrat- and they are the ones who offer proposals, policy papers, etc. For Hillary to ignore these and simply order whatever she wanted done is rather laughable (which is why the emails from Sidney Blumenthal were so inconsequential.) Like every other Secretary of State, she mostly rubber-stamped whatever proposals were the consensus. She and Obama shaped the overall direction of foreign policy, and Hillary was the one who was burdened with getting other world leaders to go along with us. That occupied 90% of her time, as it does every Secretary of State. The idea that she would get involved in low level favors in return for donations to Bill or to the Foundation, against the wishes of the State Department civil servants, is just too absurd to believe. But then, it's being spread by the same people who also argue that Hillary apparently was responsible for the security arrangements of each embassy, or that Hillary KNEW the CIA was lying to her about the source of the Benghazi attacks, etc.

Bottom line: There's nothing there.

 

[The Commish]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

You still don't get it. Just the fact that Hillary did sensitive business which related to national security and national interest on a computer which was easily hackable shows at the very minimum a complete incompetence and a total disregard for protecting vital information. I have no idea what formal approval she received to do what she did, but the level of classified information she had on her personal computer makes it criminal in itself.

See there's no good way to respond to this.

To answer your question, yes I get it. She shouldn't have combined private with business emails. It created a whole lot of problems. It was a bad mistake, I doubt it was hers (though she is responsible). But there is no scandal here, IMO.

Clearly you don't if this is what you think the issue is.

 

[Sinn Fein]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

With regard top influence peddling, you're quite correct: a lot of politicians do it. Mostly Congressmen and Senators, because they're the ones who are proposing, passing, or killing bills.

But for a Secretary of State to influence peddle is much more problematic, because she's dealing with thousands of bureaucrats that she did not hire. These long time civil servants are operating on long term policies which have very little to do with whether or not the administration is currently Republican or Democrat- and they are the ones who offer proposals, policy papers, etc. For Hillary to ignore these and simply order whatever she wanted done is rather laughable (which is why the emails from Sidney Blumenthal were so inconsequential.) Like every other Secretary of State, she mostly rubber-stamped whatever proposals were the consensus. She and Obama shaped the overall direction of foreign policy, and Hillary was the one who was burdened with getting other world leaders to go along with us. That occupied 90% of her time, as it does every Secretary of State. The idea that she would get involved in low level favors in return for donations to Bill or to the Foundation, against the wishes of the State Department civil servants, is just too absurd to believe. But then, it's being spread by the same people who also argue that Hillary apparently was responsible for the security arrangements of each embassy, or that Hillary KNEW the CIA was lying to her about the source of the Benghazi attacks, etc.

Bottom line: There's nothing there.

So, in other words - she did not really do anything noteworthy as SOS.

 

[jon_mx]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

You still don't get it. Just the fact that Hillary did sensitive business which related to national security and national interest on a computer which was easily hackable shows at the very minimum a complete incompetence and a total disregard for protecting vital information. I have no idea what formal approval she received to do what she did, but the level of classified information she had on her personal computer makes it criminal in itself.

See there's no good way to respond to this.To answer your question, yes I get it. She shouldn't have combined private with business emails. It created a whole lot of problems. It was a bad mistake, I doubt it was hers (though she is responsible). But there is no scandal here, IMO.

You still don't get it. It has little to do with combining personnel and work.

 

[RCon]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

No, you're misunderstanding the allegation. The allegation has nothing to do with WHEN the e-mails were deleted, but that they were deleted at all rather than being preserved. If she deleted them immediately after reading, the end result is identical.

 

[The Commish]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

No, you're misunderstanding the allegation. The allegation has nothing to do with WHEN the e-mails were deleted, but that they were deleted at all rather than being preserved. If she deleted them immediately after reading, the end result is identical.

the only reason deletion even comes up is because it wasn't on a gov't server

 

[Sand]

No, that's just not true Rich. Every decision Hillary made as Secretary of State was heavily vetted by dozens of people high up in the State Department, based on formal recommendations, position papers, etc. Given that the notion that Hillary was able to "peddle influence" seems far-fetched.

As for the emails, there were thousands of those to go through and determine which were public and which were not. I strongly doubt Hillary spent a single second on this project, and never even considered it until it became a scandal.

Re: influence peddling, we'll have to agree to disagree. I should note that I'm not singling the Clintons out on this one. Virtually every politician does it. Doesn't make it right.

Re: e-mail, your stunning ignorance on how e-mail works continues to amaze me, and probably lots of others here. Do you have an e-mail account? I'm beginning to think you don't, just based on your unfamiliarity with the basics. Imagine the following scenario.

1. Joe sends Jane an e-mail.

2. Jane opens the e-mail using her e-mail client (let's call it Microsoft Outlook, or Apple iOS e-mail).

3. Jane reads the e-mail, absorbs the info, then clicks the delete button.

4. Depending on the retention policy on Jane's server, the e-mail eventually disappears (i.e. permanently deleted) from Jane's side.

5. Joe's side may or may not retain a copy permanently or for a specified period of time, depending on half a dozen configuration options with respect to Joe's e-mail client and Joe's server.

Now, why does anyone have to go through Jane's e-mail to delete stuff at a later date?

Because what you're talking about now has nothing to do with the accusation being made against Hillary Clinton. That accusation was that there was incriminating evidence of wrongdoing on her emails and that she chose to erase it rather than turn it over to the State Department, at the time last year when the emails were requested. The complaint was that she and her team went back through all of those emails deciding what and what not to turn over, and that these decisions were made for nefarious purposes.

You still don't get it. Just the fact that Hillary did sensitive business which related to national security and national interest on a computer which was easily hackable shows at the very minimum a complete incompetence and a total disregard for protecting vital information. I have no idea what formal approval she received to do what she did, but the level of classified information she had on her personal computer makes it criminal in itself.

See there's no good way to respond to this.

To answer your question, yes I get it. She shouldn't have combined private with business emails. It created a whole lot of problems. It was a bad mistake, I doubt it was hers (though she is responsible). But there is no scandal here, IMO.

The real scandal is what's in the 35k "private" emails. There's a reason why she wanted no backups of the email server and why her team deleted things based on keywords.

Oh, and yes, knowingly retaining those classified documents in an insecure container is criminal. There is a pretty long list of folks sent to the pokey for that.

 

[jon_mx]

During Plamegate, Liberals demonstrated a real understanding of why it is important to protect government sensitive data, now it is like :woosh: