Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

Um I know it must seem like a silly question but if Hillary had used a gov account like you think she should have, then if she had wanted to keep a Blumenthal email from prying eyes, why not just instruct Sidney to send it to her separate personal account? That's the flaw in your theory, and it's why the only explanation for the private server that makes any sense is exactly the one she gave: convenience. 

You've said before that you were glad that Hillary was circumventing the FOIA because you thought that legislation was being abused by watchdog groups.  Are you going to make me dig back through the thread for a quote?  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Um I know it must seem like a silly question but if Hillary had used a gov account like you think she should have, then if she had wanted to keep a Blumenthal email from prying eyes, why not just instruct Sidney to send it to her separate personal account? That's the flaw in your theory, and it's why the only explanation for the private server that makes any sense is exactly the one she gave: convenience. 

Tim she was using at least three emails we know of at the same time, HDR22, HDR17, & HDR21, and she also had an ATT account. Who know if there are others but she got up to #22 at least. The .gov doesn't add any more inconvenience.

 

[RCon]

Didn't you just post "No one but you buys the "convenience" and "single device" excuse"?  And did you see my earlier reply?  Are you really suggesting that Hillary honestly believed that there was any way in the world to thwart FOIA request?  Oh, yes she did it so she could prescreen the content on her server when the day of reckoning finally came.  Except she just delegated this dastardly deed to her lawyers and their keyword searches.   

Recalibrate your sarcasm detector...

 

[RCon]

A) Not on the government provided blackberry

B) Eventually.  Because she obtained a second device a year later that she found worth carrying some how make the original decision making a lie?

No idea what that article is rambling about.  I had multiple accounts on my Blackberries for years, which I haven't used since 2012.

 

[timschochet]

You've said before that you were glad that Hillary was circumventing the FOIA because you thought that legislation was being abused by watchdog groups.  Are you going to make me dig back through the thread for a quote?  

No. I said that I don't mind Judicial Watch being circumvented. I never wrote that this was the reason for the private server. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's another beautiful thing by using "H" and "HDR" anyone else - like the national archives - searching the .gov emails (or anyone else's) or "Hillary" or "Clinton" wound come up empty.

 

[RCon]

Which false narrative is that?  Here's what I believe about Hillary.  Tell me which part is untrue.

• She has a long history of playing loose with the truth, and in many cases, outright lying.
  
• She has a long history of sketchy ethics and the appearance of impropriety.
  
• She has a tendency to base her views on political expediency (e.g. gay marriage).
  

You have admitted that every single of these things is accurate.  Now, I also happen to believe that her actual accomplishments are limited, at best, while you believe she's our greatest S.O.S. ever, but that's entirely a matter of opinion (well, if we exclude the part where you can't actually name any specific accomplishments).

I think you described EVERY politician right there. They are all unethical liars. The goal is to find the one who is best suited for the job....and for our next President, it's Hillary.

Ah, so we're back to the "he did it too" defense.  Is it wrong of me to expect better from our elected representatives?

 

[Phase of the Game]

No idea what that article is rambling about.  I had multiple accounts on my Blackberries for years, which I haven't used since 2012.

BFS is good at rambling and not making any sense.

 

[The Commish]

No I mean I don't think she did anything wrong. 

Circles those wagons Tim

I thought you had begun to get it.  I was wrong.

 

[RCon]

Circles those wagons Tim

I thought you had begun to get it.  I was wrong.

This is classic timschochet.  We could find dozens of his posts in this thread where he admits that Hillary lied about something, or showed poor judgment in one instance or another, or used questionable ethics.  Yet, days later, he's right back to "she never did anything wrong" and it's all just a right-wing conspiracy.

Look, I completely understand the "she's preferable to anything the GOP is offering" viewpoint.  Frankly, it's probably true.  But this constant denial of any lies, poor judgment, and questionable ethics is just silly.

 

[The Commish]

So, let's say it was for convenience.  Why not do the logical thing and request the server be set up on the State Department network?

 

[The Commish]

Circles those wagons Tim

I thought you had begun to get it.  I was wrong.

This is classic timschochet.  We could find dozens of his posts in this thread where he admits that Hillary lied about something, or showed poor judgment in one instance or another, or used questionable ethics.  Yet, days later, he's right back to "she never did anything wrong" and it's all just a right-wing conspiracy.

Look, I completely understand the "she's preferable to anything the GOP is offering" viewpoint.  Frankly, it's probably true.  But this constant denial of any lies, poor judgment, and questionable ethics is just silly.

Polish the Turd Syndrome IMO.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Circles those wagons Tim

I thought you had begun to get it.  I was wrong.

Every once in a while, Tim concedes a point here and there.  But then two days later he hits the rewind button and we're right back where we started.  

I didn't think anybody out there really believed the "convenience" story.  I guess I still think that nobody really believes that -- I mean, how can you possibly talk yourself into the position that well obviously the easy, convenient course of action is to hire a bunch of people to secretly set up and maintain your own private, secure email server which you know will cause all kinds of headaches if it's ever discovered.  As opposed to just using the secure email that the government gives you on day one.  I mean, nobody could believe that story in their heart of hearts, right?

I think it's more charitable to assume that Tim is just taking that position because he feels obliged to do so.  When he conceded earlier (or came close to conceding, depending on your interpretation; I'm too lazy to search for quotes) that this was really all about FOIA requests, he was forced into a pretty weird stance about how Hillary doesn't have to abide by the same expectations as folks like us.  Maybe it's psychologically easier just to talk one's self into the "convenience" story.    

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So, let's say it was for convenience.  Why not do the logical thing and request the server be set up on the State Department network?

So the claims that the server was a backdoor entry point to the government network could be true?   

 

[The Commish]

So the claims that the server was a backdoor entry point to the government network could be true?   

I'm asking a serious question here   Why was the private server specifically requested given a server of "convenience" could have easily been set up on the federal network as well and be significantly more safe?

 

[timschochet]

This is classic timschochet.  We could find dozens of his posts in this thread where he admits that Hillary lied about something, or showed poor judgment in one instance or another, or used questionable ethics.  Yet, days later, he's right back to "she never did anything wrong" and it's all just a right-wing conspiracy.

Look, I completely understand the "she's preferable to anything the GOP is offering" viewpoint.  Frankly, it's probably true.  But this constant denial of any lies, poor judgment, and questionable ethics is just silly.

No no no. 

Sometimes she lies, and I have acknowledged it. Sometimes she shows poor judgment. Sometimes she has questionable ethics. I acknowledge ALL of that. 

But wrong doing is a pretty serious charge. None of you believe this is minor stuff or else you wouldn't be posting about it. 

Mid you want me to be 100% precise, let me rephrase and write: I do not believe that she did anything wrong enough to put her at anywhere near the level that would make her a corrupt politician or an inept politician or disqualify her from high office. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So the claims that the server was a backdoor entry point to the government network could be true?   

Ridiculous to assert that someone who left her email entirely unencrypted was in any way interested in security.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So the claims that the server was a backdoor entry point to the government network could be true?   

I'm asking a serious question here   Why was the private server specifically requested given a server of "convenience" could have easily been set up on the federal network as well and be significantly more safe?

Because that would require an exception be made for Hillary in allowing her to use her official non secured government email address and/or government IT for personal business.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because that would require an exception be made for Hillary in allowing her to use her official non secured government email address and/or government IT for personal business.  

BFS I have news for you if Hillary wanted to use her work email for personal matters she was free to do so.

 

[RCon]

Because that would require an exception be made for Hillary in allowing her to use her official non secured government email address and/or government IT for personal business.  

So now we're worried about making exceptions to the rules?  I thought the argument all along has been that the rules don't apply to Hillary because she's the head of the State department?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So now we're worried about making exceptions to the rules?  I thought the argument all along has been that the rules don't apply to Hillary because she's the head of the State department?

When it came to deciding what information was and was not classified within the State Department she was not the exception to the rule she was the rule.   Beyond that if I ever find myself supporting my position by attacking statements Tim made I might take a long look at my positions.  Sure it is a winning strategy to capture a certain segment of the board to be on "your side" if that is all that matters.  

 

[The Commish]

Because that would require an exception be made for Hillary in allowing her to use her official non secured government email address and/or government IT for personal business.  

So?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm asking a serious question here   Why was the private server specifically requested given a server of "convenience" could have easily been set up on the federal network as well and be significantly more safe?

Can anyone who works for the government request a "convenience" server?

 

[flapgreen]

-Hillary has no clue that the "auto bailout" didn't save ONE single job in Flint. We used to have 80,000 GM jobs here. Today? 5,000 jobs left

 

[Rove!]

-Hillary has no clue 

She's a con artist.

this is what America has been reduced to....our top candidates for President are criminal opportunists cashing in on the misery that they create for rank and file Americans

 

[Phase of the Game]

BFS looking like Tim....so clueless

 

[Guest]

Either these Clinton statements strike you as pathological or they don't, and there's simply no 'splainin' it to you, but it's why she is a dangerous being:

"I think Colin Powell summed it up well," she said. "When he was told that some of his emails from more than 10 years ago were going to be retroactively classified, he called it an absurdity. So I'm hoping that, you know, we'll get through this and then everybody can take a hard look at the inter-agency disputes and the arguments over retroactive classification."

Clinton continued: "Remember, I'm the one who asked that all my emails be made public. I've been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it's also true that when something is made public, everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that's what's happening here. And we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there."

 

[Sinn Fein]

https://vine.co/v/iXmpanuPJPj/embed/simple

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

https://vine.co/v/iXmpanuPJPj/embed/simple

Just nuts, outright thievery.

 

[The Commish]

BFS looking like Tim....so clueless

I wouldn't say this.  He makes some good points with respect to email content.  The email content was always going to be a moving target with tons of ways to get out of it.  However, the setting up of a completely new server was different.  The cherry on top was that it was sitting in her house.  That wasn't something done by Condi or Powell.  I don't know why she keeps bringing them up as if they are in the same ball park as her and I still haven't heard a good argument for why the server was set up in her house vs on the federal network.  If it was a convenience thing, all this could have been accomplished by doing all this "special server" work within the security of the federal network yet her specific request was to have it set up outside all that.  There was a reason.

 

[jon_mx]

She is playing this over classification/interagency dispute card way too much.  This is her own agency doing the classification and we are talking about lots of secret and top secret messages. 

 

[The Commish]

She is playing this over classification/interagency dispute card way too much.  This is her own agency doing the classification and we are talking about lots of secret and top secret messages. 

It probably made sense to play this card early on, but it makes no sense now after we find out she crafted X amount of emails, herself, with classified information in them.  If there's even the slightest question whether something is (or will be) classified, you don't start the paper trail on anything but the secure system.  At least that's what they teach you in the classes she was too busy to take.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Either these Clinton statements strike you as pathological or they don't, and there's simply no 'splainin' it to you, but it's why she is a dangerous being:

"I think Colin Powell summed it up well," she said. "When he was told that some of his emails from more than 10 years ago were going to be retroactively classified, he called it an absurdity. So I'm hoping that, you know, we'll get through this and then everybody can take a hard look at the inter-agency disputes and the arguments over retroactive classification."

Clinton continued: "Remember, I'm the one who asked that all my emails be made public. I've been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it's also true that when something is made public, everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that's what's happening here. And we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there."

I can't imagine even her strongest supporters agree with her on this.

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't say this.  He makes some good points with respect to email content.  The email content was always going to be a moving target with tons of ways to get out of it.  However, the setting up of a completely new server was different.  The cherry on top was that it was sitting in her house.  That wasn't something done by Condi or Powell.  I don't know why she keeps bringing them up as if they are in the same ball park as her and I still haven't heard a good argument for why the server was set up in her house vs on the federal network.  If it was a convenience thing, all this could have been accomplished by doing all this "special server" work within the security of the federal network yet her specific request was to have it set up outside all that.  There was a reason.

And as soon as Pagliano testifies about there being conversations about avoiding records requests, the indictments will come down and the long national nightmare will at last be over.

Unless of course you believe this didn't happen, or that he'll lie.  

Or that it'll get buried for political reasons.

 

[The Commish]

I wouldn't say this.  He makes some good points with respect to email content.  The email content was always going to be a moving target with tons of ways to get out of it.  However, the setting up of a completely new server was different.  The cherry on top was that it was sitting in her house.  That wasn't something done by Condi or Powell.  I don't know why she keeps bringing them up as if they are in the same ball park as her and I still haven't heard a good argument for why the server was set up in her house vs on the federal network.  If it was a convenience thing, all this could have been accomplished by doing all this "special server" work within the security of the federal network yet her specific request was to have it set up outside all that.  There was a reason.

And as soon as Pagliano testifies about there being conversations about avoiding records requests, the indictments will come down and the long national nightmare will at last be over.

Unless of course you believe this didn't happen, or that he'll lie.  

Or that it'll get buried for political reasons.

She'd have to be a bigger idiot than I give her credit for to actually discuss avoiding records requests.  It's blatantly obvious that this would be one of the benefits.  There's zero need for her to verbalize it.  If she did, that's more evidence (to me) of her decision making problems.  I don't even need to go down the ethics/morality road.  That's just a mind-numbingly stupid decision to make on it's face.

 

[Guest]

She'd have to be a bigger idiot than I give her credit for to actually discuss avoiding records requests.  It's blatantly obvious that this would be one of the benefits.  There's zero need for her to verbalize it.  If she did, that's more evidence (to me) of her decision making problems.  I don't even need to go down the ethics/morality road.  That's just a mind-numbingly stupid decision to make on it's face.

I don't think she discussed it with the IT guy.  I'd be surprised if he has any relationship at all with the staff, however, if there wasn't an informal discussion or two about where backups would be made, emails would be stored -- in context of the underlying rationale.  

This is all the FBI needs to climb the ladder.

 

[The Commish]

She'd have to be a bigger idiot than I give her credit for to actually discuss avoiding records requests.  It's blatantly obvious that this would be one of the benefits.  There's zero need for her to verbalize it.  If she did, that's more evidence (to me) of her decision making problems.  I don't even need to go down the ethics/morality road.  That's just a mind-numbingly stupid decision to make on it's face.

I don't think she discussed it with the IT guy.  I'd be surprised if he has any relationship at all with the staff, however, if there wasn't an informal discussion or two about where backups would be made, emails would be stored -- in context of the underlying rationale.  

This is all the FBI needs to climb the ladder.

This is the world of politics.  That's not nearly enough.  Way too many ways to leave doubt, especially for supporters who basically set a bar of "confession tattooed on her forehead inked by Hillary herself on video" as the level of acceptability

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She is playing this over classification/interagency dispute card way too much.  This is her own agency doing the classification and we are talking about lots of secret and top secret messages. 

It's also not an actual defense to a criminal charge or even any discipline action for someone doing the same thing at State. But it does serve as a fig leaf for any believers, which is really the point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She'd have to be a bigger idiot than I give her credit for to actually discuss avoiding records requests.  It's blatantly obvious that this would be one of the benefits.  There's zero need for her to verbalize it.  If she did, that's more evidence (to me) of her decision making problems.  I don't even need to go down the ethics/morality road.  That's just a mind-numbingly stupid decision to make on it's face.

There's an email exchange in 2010 or 2011 where State IT responds to one of the several instances where Hillary's email has crashed by suggesting they set her up with a gov account and all kinds of secure apparatus like a blackberry and the like. It is Pagliano, Mills and Abedeen who are on it and it was one of either Mills or Abedeen who say, essentially, 'nah, we don't want that' (ie the gov account) when the IT guy specifically raises the fact that the gov account would provide for FOIA requests and the like. I will be glad to dig it up if anyone specifically wants to see it. Now Hillary is not on that but Mills was Hillary's right hand of the king in all things, she even signed for her on various things.

 

[Trey]

So Clinton gave up 2 delegates from her 200 delegate lead over the weekend after losing 3/4.

Tomorrow should be the start of the last real week of the campaign. She'll romp in MS and win by DD in Michigan. Couple that with comfortable victories in FL and OH the following Tuesday and we'll be in all out General Election mode. 

 

[The Commish]

There's an email exchange in 2010 or 2011 where State IT responds to one of the several instances where Hillary's email has crashed by suggesting they set her up with a gov account and all kinds of secure apparatus like a blackberry and the like. It is Pagliano, Mills and Abedeen who are on it and it was one of either Mills or Abedeen who say, essentially, 'nah, we don't want that' (ie the gov account) when the IT guy specifically raises the fact that the gov account would provide for FOIA requests and the like. I will be glad to dig it up if anyone specifically wants to see it. Now Hillary is not on that but Mills was Hillary's right hand of the king in all things, she even signed for her on various things.

All this does is give Hillary supporters the "see, Hillary didn't say no, X did" out

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

All this does is give Hillary supporters the "see, Hillary didn't say no, X did" out

Well I don't want to give anyone an in or an out here. Here's the email I was referencing. It was Abedin.

But I don't think anyone is automatically inculpated or exculpated on this. It means that Abedin was aware of the FOIA issue. There is another round of emails when Hillary had left State and Mills was charged by State with ensuring that Hillary's documentation was made available for FOIA and it's very apparent that she consciously stiff-armed those efforts. What it does mean is that if we hear the FBI is questioning Hillary or her aides they will likely ask some version of what we are discussing. They already have Pagliano in the bag. They wouldn't talk to Hillary until most likely after they talk to Mills and Abedeen. The FBI will already know the truth at that point. It's going to be serious popcorn stuff. I don't think anyone believes for an instant that what Abedin or Mills does is done independently or in any way without it being what Hillary wants.

 

[Guest]

Well I don't want to give anyone an in or an out here. Here's the email I was referencing. It was Abedin.

But I don't think anyone is automatically inculpated or exculpated on this. It means that Abedin was aware of the FOIA issue. There is another round of emails when Hillary had left State and Mills was charged by State with ensuring that Hillary's documentation was made available for FOIA and it's very apparent that she consciously stiff-armed those efforts. What it does mean is that if we hear the FBI is questioning Hillary or her aides they will likely ask some version of what we are discussing. They already have Pagliano in the bag. They wouldn't talk to Hillary until most likely after they talk to Mills and Abedeen. The FBI will already know the truth at that point. It's going to be serious popcorn stuff. I don't think anyone believes for an instant that what Abedin or Mills does is done independently or in any way without it being what Hillary wants.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, Mills responds after 5 months of stonewalling to a request for any private Hillary email addresses by saying there was no record of any, or the equivalent.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If it's the one I'm thinking of, Mills responds after 5 months of stonewalling to a request for any private Hillary email addresses by saying there was no record of any, or the equivalent.  

That may be it, 'hey we checked and nope no documents from a 4 year SOS tenure here, nope!'

 

[cstu]

Well I don't want to give anyone an in or an out here. Here's the email I was referencing. It was Abedin.

But I don't think anyone is automatically inculpated or exculpated on this. It means that Abedin was aware of the FOIA issue. There is another round of emails when Hillary had left State and Mills was charged by State with ensuring that Hillary's documentation was made available for FOIA and it's very apparent that she consciously stiff-armed those efforts. What it does mean is that if we hear the FBI is questioning Hillary or her aides they will likely ask some version of what we are discussing. They already have Pagliano in the bag. They wouldn't talk to Hillary until most likely after they talk to Mills and Abedeen. The FBI will already know the truth at that point. It's going to be serious popcorn stuff. I don't think anyone believes for an instant that what Abedin or Mills does is done independently or in any way without it being what Hillary wants.

I don't think there's any chance that Hillary is charged with a crime. If the the FBI were going to do it they were have done it long ago, not 8 months before an election in which her victory would render the charges moot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think there's any chance that Hillary is charged with a crime. If the the FBI were going to do it they were have done it long ago, not 8 months before an election in which her victory would render the charges moot.

And I don't think I give people a hard time about this position, it's the most likely outcome (though I don't think the decision has been made yet). But it's been reported that Pagliano has been given immunity, it's been reported that the FBI will likely be questioning Hillary's aides and maybe Hillary, and people here have been debating if Hillary was really trying to avoid Foia, that's what I was referring to.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I can't imagine even her strongest supporters agree with her on this.

She needs to get more hammered on the Wall Street Speeches and her absurd stance.  

I thought her answer was the true worst moment for either candidate last night.  

Her response so far has been petulant and no one in the media holds her remotely accountable for such lame answers

 

[Sammy3469]

Lost in all this, her decision to run as Obama's third term is looking more prudent by the day as he's almost back to a net neutral rating. 

 

[saintfool]

I don't think there's any chance that Hillary is charged with a crime. If the the FBI were going to do it they were have done it long ago, not 8 months before an election in which her victory would render the charges moot.

General Petraeus received a $100k fine and 2 years probation for sharing highly classified material with his lover/biographer, Paula Broadwell:

"At issue are "black books" — eight notebooks in which Petraeus kept highly classified information that the government says included "the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus's discussions with the President of the United States of America. "

People thinking Hillary's going to jail are sadly mistaken.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

General Petraeus received a $100k fine and 2 years probation for sharing highly classified material with his lover/biographer, Paula Broadwell:

People thinking Hillary's going to jail are sadly mistaken.

There are a wide range of things that could happen to normals who would do less than what what Hillary did:

• lose job
  
• lose clearance
  
• banned from future federal work requiring clearance
  
• fine
  
• misdemeanor
  
• felony
  
• jail
  

For instance if Hillary got hit with a fine and a misdemeanor with probation half or even a quarter of what Petraeus got that's no small thing. That would be a big deal. Hillary btw has the same lawyer as Petraeus. - Not that I'm saying that will happen. But just "less than jail" would not automatically be without consequences either. If it reaches one of her aides without touching Hillary that would even be a big deal IMO. There will also be a report, I could see how such a report would find "wrongdoing" but not criminal wrongdoing on Hillary's part. Or maybe no wrongdoing by anyone is possible, but after a year of investigation I doubt the FBI just comes out and says 'well we've just been doing this for nothing' either.