Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[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.

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.

Are you reading this Rich? You're talking about Hillary deleting emails one by one, and Sand is talking about what might be in 35,000 emails supposedly deleted by Hillary's people. My comments were in response to people who think like Sand does (which is most conservatives who are concerned with this "scandal".)

 

[timschochet]

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

The charge made in that situation was that information was deliberately leaked.I see no parallel here.

 

[RCon]

Regardless, the e-mail server is problematic on a number of levels. Among others:

1. It gives the appearance of Clinton having something to hide.

2. The security level of her server was non-existent. This is probably the biggest issue, as it displays incompetence and poor judgment at a stunning level.

3. She handled classified info through that server, which is illegal, as it's not the official government-approved system for handling classified info.

4. Adding mailboxes for others on her staff, such as Mills and Abedin, only adds to the appearance of impropriety.

5. She did not turn over all e-mails that she was required to turn over. Whether there was anything important or "gotcha" in those e-mails that she failed to turn over is irrelevant.

6. She has lied about various facets of the private server multiple times now.

Re: the Foundation, there are issues there as well. Among others:

1. Having Mills and Abedin working for, and being paid by, the Foundation at the same time they were on her SoS staff gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

2. The Clintons, and their Foundation, being paid by groups that also had business before Hillary in her SoS capacity also gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

In both cases, public servants should be bending over backward to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety. In Clinton's case, she not only doesn't actively try to avoid these things, she outright encourages them. Then, when caught, she outright lies about it. In your case, you believe everything she says until there's proof of a lie. For most rational people, the fact that she has been caught lying multiple times shifts the burden of proof such that I assume she is lying until proven otherwise.

 

[RCon]

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

The charge made in that situation was that information was deliberately leaked.I see no parallel here.

Clinton made a deliberate decision to use a personal e-mail system. That it was unsecured amounts to negligence. Blatant negligence can often be just as dangerous and culpable as deliberate malfeasance.

 

[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.

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.

Are you reading this Rich? You're talking about Hillary deleting emails one by one, and Sand is talking about what might be in 35,000 emails supposedly deleted by Hillary's people. My comments were in response to people who think like Sand does (which is most conservatives who are concerned with this "scandal".)

I'm not defending conservatives who go off the deep end, but I can't defend Clinton either. She invited this type of treatment by her actions, and lost the benefit of the doubt by lying about it.

 

[timschochet]

Regardless, the e-mail server is problematic on a number of levels. Among others:

1. It gives the appearance of Clinton having something to hide.

2. The security level of her server was non-existent. This is probably the biggest issue, as it displays incompetence and poor judgment at a stunning level.

3. She handled classified info through that server, which is illegal, as it's not the official government-approved system for handling classified info.

4. Adding mailboxes for others on her staff, such as Mills and Abedin, only adds to the appearance of impropriety.

5. She did not turn over all e-mails that she was required to turn over. Whether there was anything important or "gotcha" in those e-mails that she failed to turn over is irrelevant.

6. She has lied about various facets of the private server multiple times now.

Re: the Foundation, there are issues there as well. Among others:

1. Having Mills and Abedin working for, and being paid by, the Foundation at the same time they were on her SoS staff gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

2. The Clintons, and their Foundation, being paid by groups that also had business before Hillary in her SoS capacity also gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

In both cases, public servants should be bending over backward to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety. In Clinton's case, she not only doesn't actively try to avoid these things, she outright encourages them. Then, when caught, she outright lies about it. In your case, you believe everything she says until there's proof of a lie. For most rational people, the fact that she has been caught lying multiple times shifts the burden of proof such that I assume she is lying until proven otherwise.

Re: emails

1. Agreed.

2. I dunno. Some people say this, some people say that. Even if you're right, I'd be astonished if she had anything to do with it.

3. Nah. Technical. It was made classified afterwards.

4. Agreed.

5. I don't think this is true. But if it is true, more likely the result of error rather than deliberate action, and an error that was not Hillary's.

6. Agreed. Don't know about multiple, but she has changed her story.

Re: Foundation.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

The charge made in that situation was that information was deliberately leaked.I see no parallel here.

You've created a false distinction, mishandling classified data and leaking classified date are different crimes but they're both crimes involving protecting government sensitive data.

 

[The Commish]

Regardless, the e-mail server is problematic on a number of levels. Among others:

1. It gives the appearance of Clinton having something to hide.

2. The security level of her server was non-existent. This is probably the biggest issue, as it displays incompetence and poor judgment at a stunning level.

3. She handled classified info through that server, which is illegal, as it's not the official government-approved system for handling classified info.

4. Adding mailboxes for others on her staff, such as Mills and Abedin, only adds to the appearance of impropriety.

5. She did not turn over all e-mails that she was required to turn over. Whether there was anything important or "gotcha" in those e-mails that she failed to turn over is irrelevant.

6. She has lied about various facets of the private server multiple times now.

Re: the Foundation, there are issues there as well. Among others:

1. Having Mills and Abedin working for, and being paid by, the Foundation at the same time they were on her SoS staff gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

2. The Clintons, and their Foundation, being paid by groups that also had business before Hillary in her SoS capacity also gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

In both cases, public servants should be bending over backward to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety. In Clinton's case, she not only doesn't actively try to avoid these things, she outright encourages them. Then, when caught, she outright lies about it. In your case, you believe everything she says until there's proof of a lie. For most rational people, the fact that she has been caught lying multiple times shifts the burden of proof such that I assume she is lying until proven otherwise.

Re: emails

1. Agreed.

2. I dunno. Some people say this, some people say that. Even if you're right, I'd be astonished if she had anything to do with it.

3. Nah. Technical. It was made classified afterwards.

4. Agreed.

5. I don't think this is true. But if it is true, more likely the result of error rather than deliberate action, and an error that was not Hillary's.

6. Agreed. Don't know about multiple, but she has changed her story.

Re: Foundation.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

There has been no argument from conflicting sources regarding #2 thus far that I am aware of. Not even Clinton's team has come out and challenged the findings of the independent analysis of the server's security. SoD, correct me if I'm wrong on that

 

[RCon]

Regardless, the e-mail server is problematic on a number of levels. Among others:

1. It gives the appearance of Clinton having something to hide.

2. The security level of her server was non-existent. This is probably the biggest issue, as it displays incompetence and poor judgment at a stunning level.

3. She handled classified info through that server, which is illegal, as it's not the official government-approved system for handling classified info.

4. Adding mailboxes for others on her staff, such as Mills and Abedin, only adds to the appearance of impropriety.

5. She did not turn over all e-mails that she was required to turn over. Whether there was anything important or "gotcha" in those e-mails that she failed to turn over is irrelevant.

6. She has lied about various facets of the private server multiple times now.

Re: the Foundation, there are issues there as well. Among others:

1. Having Mills and Abedin working for, and being paid by, the Foundation at the same time they were on her SoS staff gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

2. The Clintons, and their Foundation, being paid by groups that also had business before Hillary in her SoS capacity also gives the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety.

In both cases, public servants should be bending over backward to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest and impropriety. In Clinton's case, she not only doesn't actively try to avoid these things, she outright encourages them. Then, when caught, she outright lies about it. In your case, you believe everything she says until there's proof of a lie. For most rational people, the fact that she has been caught lying multiple times shifts the burden of proof such that I assume she is lying until proven otherwise.

Re: emails

1. Agreed.

2. I dunno. Some people say this, some people say that. Even if you're right, I'd be astonished if she had anything to do with it.

3. Nah. Technical. It was made classified afterwards.

4. Agreed.

5. I don't think this is true. But if it is true, more likely the result of error rather than deliberate action, and an error that was not Hillary's.

6. Agreed. Don't know about multiple, but she has changed her story.

Re: Foundation.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

2. The buck stops with her. She made the decision to use an outside system. She was negligent in following up on the details.

3. You're wrong about the info being made classified afterwards. I don't know how else to say it. Certain info is classified (or higher), whether it's marked classified or not. It is incumbent on public officials, especially the SoS, to be able to recognize such info when they see it.

5. It is demonstrably true, as we know from the Blumenthal e-mails. Whether it was her error or not, again, the buck stops with her. She made the decision to use an outside system. Had she not made that decision, there would have been no need to sort out the "work" from "private".

 

[GrandpaRox]

Gun Sales Set Record for Sixth Month in a Row

‘Summer of the gun’ continues into the fall
November 4, 2015 10:30 am

The Federal Bureau of Investigation processed a record number of background checks in the month of October, indicating that gun sales were at an all time high for the sixth month in a row.

So far in 2015 the FBI has performed 17,584,346 firearms related checks. Currently, 2015 is on pace to beat 2013’s record 21,09,273 checks.

Gun rights activists have pointed to Democrats’ calls for new gun control measures as one reason why gun sales have increased. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has said that the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, that Australian style mandatory gun buybacks should be considered in the United States, and that she would implement new gun control through executive action.

“Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the best gun salespeople on the planet. The more they scream for new gun control laws the more guns walk off the shelves at gun stores,”

 

[jon_mx]

Let's just say Iran was able to hack Hillay's e-mail. And through that hacking realized the US needed to make a deal under any circumstance. Such information whether or not it has been officially declared classified seriously harmed the US. It really doesn't matter that the information was marked or not, Hillary would have severely compromised our position.

 

[jon_mx]

We should probably ask Russia and Iran the contents of Hillary's deleted emails. They certainly have them.

 

[timschochet]

We should probably ask Russia and Iran the contents of Hillary's deleted emails. They certainly have them.

I'm sure they do, along with everybody else's.

The whole reason the State Department requested copies of Hillary's emails in the first place was because THEIR system was compromised. That's another Kafkaesque element to this entire story.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's just say Iran was able to hack Hillay's e-mail. And through that hacking realized the US needed to make a deal under any circumstance. Such information whether or not it has been officially declared classified seriously harmed the US. It really doesn't matter that the information was marked or not, Hillary would have severely compromised our position.

The marking thing is a complete canard, it's a hoax. It's not a defense to the charge in any way.

The idea that something becomes classified later, but isn't at the time of the event is nonsensical. That can't even be logically explained. It's also directly contradicted by the facts because the marked documents, marked after Hillary handled them, are dated to the date of the sending, not the date of the marking.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Al Couvillion @alcouviRetired Navy.

Al Couvillion ‏@alcouvi Aug 31

@oreillyfactor After 30 years in SIGINT, had I done what Hillary did, I'd be watching this from a jail cell #email scandal

 

[Gopher State]

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.

I agree most polls show Hillary ahead of sanders from 18 to 35 Points nationwide, I think she is ahead by more then 35 points

 

[jon_mx]

Here is how you profit off of your government authority. ExxonMobile has donated a few million to the Clinton foundation the last couple of years. This year ExxonMobile was one of a few companies who decide to stop donating to the Clinton foundation. Now Hillary is calling for ExxonMobile to be investigated. That is how something like the Clinton Foundation can be and is corrupt. The ethical violation is off the charts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is how you profit off of your government authority. ExxonMobile has donated a few million to the Clinton foundation the last couple of years. This year ExxonMobile was one of a few companies who decide to stop donating to the Clinton foundation. Now Hillary is calling for ExxonMobile to be investigated. That is how something like the Clinton Foundation can be and is corrupt. The ethical violation is off the charts.

Naturally Foundation fundraising is again going up as Hillary is running for president. Shocker.

 

[jon_mx]

Here is how you profit off of your government authority. ExxonMobile has donated a few million to the Clinton foundation the last couple of years. This year ExxonMobile was one of a few companies who decide to stop donating to the Clinton foundation. Now Hillary is calling for ExxonMobile to be investigated. That is how something like the Clinton Foundation can be and is corrupt. The ethical violation is off the charts.

Naturally Foundation fundraising is again going up as Hillary is running for president. Shocker.

Really though, I think Hillary is legitimately upset the Exxon has possibly misled and lied to the American public. That is Hillary's job.

 

[Sand]

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.

Are you reading this Rich? You're talking about Hillary deleting emails one by one, and Sand is talking about what might be in 35,000 emails supposedly deleted by Hillary's people. My comments were in response to people who think like Sand does (which is most conservatives who are concerned with this "scandal".)

So let's estimate numbers on how many emails inside that 35k pertain to the following subjects:

A. Emails to Bill

B. Emails to Chelsea

C. Emails to Syndey

D. Clinton Foundation emails

E. Teneo emails

F. Yoga routine emails.

I'd be interested to see what you put on those.

 

[timschochet]

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.

Are you reading this Rich? You're talking about Hillary deleting emails one by one, and Sand is talking about what might be in 35,000 emails supposedly deleted by Hillary's people. My comments were in response to people who think like Sand does (which is most conservatives who are concerned with this "scandal".)

So let's estimate numbers on how many emails inside that 35k pertain to the following subjects:

A. Emails to Bill

B. Emails to Chelsea

C. Emails to Syndey

D. Clinton Foundation emails

E. Teneo emails

F. Yoga routine emails.

I'd be interested to see what you put on those.

Sorry Sand I don't know and don't have the slightest interest in guessing. This whole story couldn't be more boring to me honestly.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Oregon Voters Pass Gun Law Nullification Measure Backed By Oath Keepers

Voters in Coos County, Oregon on Tuesday passed a measure that empowers the sheriff to prohibit local enforcement of state and federal gun laws he deems unconstitutional.

The Oregonian reported that more than 60 percent of Coos County voters cast ballots in favor of a "Second Amendment Preservation Measure.

Wheeler and Wallowa counties, in the eastern part of the state, already have similar ordinances in place, according to The Oregonian.

 

[Sand]

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.

Are you reading this Rich? You're talking about Hillary deleting emails one by one, and Sand is talking about what might be in 35,000 emails supposedly deleted by Hillary's people. My comments were in response to people who think like Sand does (which is most conservatives who are concerned with this "scandal".)

So let's estimate numbers on how many emails inside that 35k pertain to the following subjects:

A. Emails to Bill

B. Emails to Chelsea

C. Emails to Syndey

D. Clinton Foundation emails

E. Teneo emails

F. Yoga routine emails.

I'd be interested to see what you put on those.

Sorry Sand I don't know and don't have the slightest interest in guessing. This whole story couldn't be more boring to me honestly.

Then just skip all these posts, Tim. Fact is this situation, which Clinton brought on herself, is incredibly relevant to her fitness for office.

(And yet somehow traffic jams in New Jersey are riveting - go figure).

 

[Mister CIA]

Oregon Voters Pass Gun Law Nullification Measure Backed By Oath Keepers

Voters in Coos County, Oregon on Tuesday passed a measure that empowers the sheriff to prohibit local enforcement of state and federal gun laws he deems unconstitutional.

The Oregonian reported that more than 60 percent of Coos County voters cast ballots in favor of a "Second Amendment Preservation Measure.

Wheeler and Wallowa counties, in the eastern part of the state, already have similar ordinances in place, according to The Oregonian.

Drones it is.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is how you profit off of your government authority. ExxonMobile has donated a few million to the Clinton foundation the last couple of years. This year ExxonMobile was one of a few companies who decide to stop donating to the Clinton foundation. Now Hillary is calling for ExxonMobile to be investigated. That is how something like the Clinton Foundation can be and is corrupt. The ethical violation is off the charts.

Naturally Foundation fundraising is again going up as Hillary is running for president. Shocker.

Really though, I think Hillary is legitimately upset the Exxon has possibly misled and lied to the American public. That is Hillary's job.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. And by skin I mean bribe and by cat I mean politician.

Lobbyists for Monsanto, ExxonMobil Raise Money for Hillary Clinton Registered lobbyists brought in more than $2 million in fundraising for the Clinton campaign, recent filings show....Other bundlers lobby for big companies including Microsoft (Fred Humphries) and Exxon Mobil (Theresa Fariello) or industry groups including the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (Daphna Peled).

...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/lobbyists-for-monsanto-exxon-mobile-raise-money-for-hillary-clinton

When you regulate and receive you get `em coming and going.

Hillary Clinton is now supporting a federal investigation of ExxonMobil following the latest disclosures that the giant oil company worked to hide the effects of climate change.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-hillary-clinton-demands-probe-exxon-after-oil-giant-stops-funding

- Hillary is doing this to shut up progressive critics, nothing else. The coffers will be open for Exxon to pony up more and more when she gets in, they can either get with the program or suffer the lash. Or both. We know banks and arms dealers received breaks while Hillary was SOS even while they were piling in the money. Did it influence her? Who knows.... Maybe concerned citizens and journalists should do a Foia request. Of what? From where? Her work emails? This is the kind of thing we have to look forward to.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton State Department Emails Contain Redacted Job Description for Top Energy DiplomatThe U.S. State Department released a batch of 3,000 searchable documents formerly stored on the private hard drive and in a private email account of Democratic Party presidential candidate and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Among them: a fully redacted job description for State Department International Energy Coordinator/Diplomat-At-Large.

David Goldwyn — now a fellow at the Atlantic Council, fellow at the Brookings Institution and head of Goldwyn Global Strategies — would eventually come to assume that role as head of the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources, a Bureau that premiered under the watch of then-Secretary Clinton.

Goldwyn, as revealed in a Mother Jones article by Mariah Blake, headed up the State Department's Global Shale Gas Initiative as the leader of the Bureau of Energy Resources, where he “sold fracking to the world.” A biography for Goldwyn that appears to have come from the job application process for the position was also released by the State Department.

The job description document was whited out because it fell under the B(5) “deliberative process privilege,” a controversial rationale used by the federal government to redact large chunks of emails and other documents. The use of the B(5) exemption has exploded under the Obama Administration.

Before taking the job as State Department International Energy Coordinator, Goldwyn served as an oil industry lobbyist and consultant, often lobbying in everything but name and in an unregistered manner.

Goldwyn is one of the characters featured in investigative journalist Ken Silverstein's book “The Secret World of Oil” as a “fixer.” He also plays a central role in the DeSmogBlog-Republic Report joint investigative report, “Natural Gas Exports: Washington's Revolving Door Fuels Climate Threat.”

www.desmogblog.com/2015/07/01/hillary-clinton-state-department-emails-contain-redacted-job-description-top-energy-diplomat

Let's see if you can guess where the oil company lobbyists currently shoveling money into Hillary's paws will land after she's elected? If you guess the Department of Energy you guessed correctly.

 

[timschochet]

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.

Are you reading this Rich? You're talking about Hillary deleting emails one by one, and Sand is talking about what might be in 35,000 emails supposedly deleted by Hillary's people. My comments were in response to people who think like Sand does (which is most conservatives who are concerned with this "scandal".)

So let's estimate numbers on how many emails inside that 35k pertain to the following subjects:

A. Emails to Bill

B. Emails to Chelsea

C. Emails to Syndey

D. Clinton Foundation emails

E. Teneo emails

F. Yoga routine emails.

I'd be interested to see what you put on those.

Sorry Sand I don't know and don't have the slightest interest in guessing. This whole story couldn't be more boring to me honestly.

Then just skip all these posts, Tim. Fact is this situation, which Clinton brought on herself, is incredibly relevant to her fitness for office.

(And yet somehow traffic jams in New Jersey are riveting - go figure).

Not to me they're not. I've always thought that was a non-story too, and I wrote that here.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seems so dated doesn't it? I don't mean the hairstyles and clothing or even the low resolution VHS quality, but the idea that these kids needed to wait to grow up.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Seems so dated doesn't it? I don't mean the hairstyles and clothing or even the low resolution VHS quality, but the idea that these kids needed to wait to grow up.

You are a strange dude.

 

[Trey]

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clintons private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clappers office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qjvL9p5T

 

[timschochet]

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clintons private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clappers office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qjvL9p5T

well its from Politico and it can't be trusted.

And it's also from James Clapper and can't be trusted.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hillary Clinton on Urban v. Rural gun issues

 

[Phil Elliott]

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clintons private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clappers office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qjvL9p5T

well its from Politico and it can't be trusted.

And it's also from James Clapper and can't be trusted.

And its from the federal government and they can't be trusted.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The U.S. intelligence community has retreated from claims that two emails in Hillary Clintons private account contained top secret information, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The determination came from Director of National Intelligence James Clappers office and concluded that the two emails did not include highly classified intelligence secrets. Concerns about the emails' classification helped trigger an on-going FBI inquiry into Clinton's private email set-up.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599#ixzz3qjvL9p5T

well its from Politico and it can't be trusted.

And it's also from James Clapper and can't be trusted.

I think you can at least rely on Politico for information as best as we can make it out, they have done a lot of good reporting on this. It's a very good sign for Hillary if it's in fact accurate. I think the campaign attacking the Inspector General is completely unnecessary and disrespectful, maybe misleading. It's also inaccurate as the IG did not himself make the determination his office relied on the IC, in this case the NIA specifically. It's rather odd that considering that the IG relied on the NIA in the first place for its determination yet now the NIA has reversed field.

A top expert in classification procedures called the reported determination from the intelligence chief's office "an astonishing turn of events."

That's an excellent development for Hillary if true. The emails are still likely Classified though and you can lump them in with the other ~700.

 

[GrandpaRox]

In Federalist Paper number 46, James Madison explained that Americans are exceptional because armed, and that such exceptionalism provides them an ultimate check on federal overreach.

Madison contended that one of the strongest checks on federal tyranny–if not the single strongest check–was an armed citizenry. He boiled down differences between Americans and their European counterparts by explaining that Americans could unite to stop a federal government intent on using military force to topple State power: disarmed Europeans had no such option.

He succinctly described this as “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

Madison used Federalist 46 to explain that “ultimate authority…resides in the people alone.” All authority held by government is derivative power that flows from the people and rests in the people.

Understanding this, it is much easier to understand why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the people had the means to defend the power that resides in them by birth, and only in the government by choice.

 

[Trey]

In Federalist Paper number 46, James Madison explained that Americans are exceptional because armed, and that such exceptionalism provides them an ultimate check on federal overreach.



Madison contended that one of the strongest checks on federal tyrannyif not the single strongest checkwas an armed citizenry. He boiled down differences between Americans and their European counterparts by explaining that Americans could unite to stop a federal government intent on using military force to topple State power: disarmed Europeans had no such option.

He succinctly described this as the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

Madison used Federalist 46 to explain that ultimate authorityresides in the people alone. All authority held by government is derivative power that flows from the people and rests in the people.

Understanding this, it is much easier to understand why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the people had the means to defend the power that resides in them by birth, and only in the government by choice.

I almost want the federal government and military to turn against us and kill us all. I'd just have to hope there is an afterlife so I can ask all the idiots armed to the gills how their guns held up against tanks and bombs.

 

[Trey]

Saints I agree with the attack on the IG being unnecessary. The Clinton campaign should be taking the high road in every way imaginable right now. A statement to the effect, "we are pleased that the IG reviewed his classification and came to the same conclusion that we were confident of". Instead you get spiking the ball bull#### for no good reason.

 

[GrandpaRox]

In Federalist Paper number 46, James Madison explained that Americans are exceptional because armed, and that such exceptionalism provides them an ultimate check on federal overreach.



Madison contended that one of the strongest checks on federal tyrannyif not the single strongest checkwas an armed citizenry. He boiled down differences between Americans and their European counterparts by explaining that Americans could unite to stop a federal government intent on using military force to topple State power: disarmed Europeans had no such option.

He succinctly described this as the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

Madison used Federalist 46 to explain that ultimate authorityresides in the people alone. All authority held by government is derivative power that flows from the people and rests in the people.

Understanding this, it is much easier to understand why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the people had the means to defend the power that resides in them by birth, and only in the government by choice.

I almost want the federal government and military to turn against us and kill us all. I'd just have to hope there is an afterlife so I can ask all the idiots armed to the gills how their guns held up against tanks and bombs.

What an uneducated response. I have a grandson and he has a number of friends in the military and guess what side they would fall on. Multiply that by 55 million and then think about your response again.

This was on Nov 4th this year and this is in Oregon not the gun crazy, clinging to religion folks.

Oregon Voters Pass Gun Law Nullification Measure Backed By Oath Keepers

Voters in Coos County, Oregon on Tuesday passed a measure that empowers the sheriff to prohibit local enforcement of state and federal gun laws he deems unconstitutional.

The Oregonian reported that more than 60 percent of Coos County voters cast ballots in favor of a "Second Amendment Preservation Measure.

You are looking at the world out of Tim's eyes.

Edited to add: Why do you make fun of one of the most important founding fathers and are you willing to give up any other Amendments other than the 2nd?

 

[jon_mx]

It is no surprise the Feds will back off now that Biden is not going to be a candidate. Obama could have pulled the plug in this at any time.

 

[Trey]

I should really clarify a bit. I'm not truly anti-gun. I'm more gun apathetic. I can't for the life of me understand why universal background check legislation can't be passed. I never understand the uproar over banning specific ammunition or guns whose sole purpose is to cause maximum damage. And I think positioning guns as our protection against tyranny is downright silly in 2015. But I'm not really affected in any way by people spending thousands of dollars on their own little amusement park. I'd just like to know for sure that they don't have a criminal or mental health red flag with certainty before they exercise that right.

Additionally, gun laws are much like gay marriage laws. Toss them in a low turn out, non POTUS election and you are going to draw out passionate conversatives who really care about the issue.

Edit to add: despite my Clinton homerism I strive to steer clear of hyperbole so my first gun comment above was dumb in retrospect.

 

[GrandpaRox]

I should really clarify a bit. I'm not truly anti-gun. I'm more gun apathetic. I can't for the life of me understand why universal background check legislation can't be passed. I never understand the uproar over banning specific ammunition or guns whose sole purpose is to cause maximum damage. And I think positioning guns as our protection against tyranny is downright silly in 2015. But I'm not really affected in any way by people spending thousands of dollars on their own little amusement park. I'd just like to know for sure that they don't have a criminal or mental health red flag with certainty before they exercise that right.

Additionally, gun laws are much like gay marriage laws. Toss them in a low turn out, non POTUS election and you are going to draw out passionate conversatives who really care about the issue.

I have had a background check for every gun/rifle I have ever purchased, except for 1 shotgun bought from a person. Can you even imagine how you would run a background check on someone you were selling a gun to, where would you even start and tell how you would do it. The gun show loophole accounts for a minuscule number of guns sold. It is an absolute red-herring used to scare you and would have almost zero to do with gun purchases.

As to your second point, why? Would you also ban any car with over 100 HP because they are more dangerous and they kill far more people than guns in the hands of legal, background checked Americans.

It is your opinion that their sole purpose is to cause maximum damage, you are absolutely uninformed and drinking the kool-aid.

AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.

AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

 

[RCon]

Saints I agree with the attack on the IG being unnecessary. The Clinton campaign should be taking the high road in every way imaginable right now. A statement to the effect, "we are pleased that the IG reviewed his classification and came to the same conclusion that we were confident of". Instead you get spiking the ball bull#### for no good reason.

First time ever that the phrases "the Clinton campaign" and "taking the high road" were used in the same sentence?

 

[timschochet]

Hillary very impressive tonight. Though when she mentioned that she met with Trayvon Martin's mom, I expect that is going to make some people excited.

 

[hagmania]

Bill was/is such a hunk.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

 

[Johnnymac]

I should really clarify a bit. I'm not truly anti-gun. I'm more gun apathetic. I can't for the life of me understand why universal background check legislation can't be passed. I never understand the uproar over banning specific ammunition or guns whose sole purpose is to cause maximum damage. And I think positioning guns as our protection against tyranny is downright silly in 2015. But I'm not really affected in any way by people spending thousands of dollars on their own little amusement park. I'd just like to know for sure that they don't have a criminal or mental health red flag with certainty before they exercise that right.

Additionally, gun laws are much like gay marriage laws. Toss them in a low turn out, non POTUS election and you are going to draw out passionate conversatives who really care about the issue.

I have had a background check for every gun/rifle I have ever purchased, except for 1 shotgun bought from a person. Can you even imagine how you would run a background check on someone you were selling a gun to, where would you even start and tell how you would do it. The gun show loophole accounts for a minuscule number of guns sold. It is an absolute red-herring used to scare you and would have almost zero to do with gun purchases.

As to your second point, why? Would you also ban any car with over 100 HP because they are more dangerous and they kill far more people than guns in the hands of legal, background checked Americans.

It is your opinion that their sole purpose is to cause maximum damage, you are absolutely uninformed and drinking the kool-aid.

AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.

These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.

AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

I think you may be the one drinking the kool-aid

 

[timschochet]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

I think calling the Iranians her enemies already puts her out ahead by a good few lengths...

 

[jon_mx]

Did Hillary really say she isn't more hawkish than Obama?

No she said that she doesn't expect as President to be more hawkish than Obama has been.

I think calling the Iranians her enemies already puts her out ahead by a good few lengths...

Hmmm, I thought it was the Republicans who were the enemy. So confusing. Need to ask if she would send drones to bomb GOP headquarters.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Bloomberg Politics‏@bpolitics

In a new poll, Hillary Clinton has the backing of 71% of South Carolina's likely Dem voters http://bloom.bg/20tUGnD

The primary election night broadcasts are going to be ridiculous.... 'tell us what's going on in Montana tonight, Chuck.... oh Hillary 90-10. Ok then, on to Missouri...'