Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)

[MaxThreshold]

A whole lot of arguing about whether this email or that email was classified when all you really need to do is look at the terrible lack of judgment in procuring and using your own private server and email for at the very least sensitive government information. Information which is supposed to be on an official government server and email account for very valid reasons. This fact alone should disqualify HRC from the Presidency.

Problem is that Hillary's sycophants refuse to believe anything at all about Hillary unless it comes from her lips alone.  They'll continue to make excuses for all of her terrible decisions.

Reasonable people know that where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Problem is that Hillary's sycophants refuse to believe anything at all about Hillary unless it comes from her lips alone.  They'll continue to make excuses for all of her terrible decisions.

Reasonable people know that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Actually the funny thing about the emails is they won't even believe what she writes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How's business at Email & Gaffe LLC this morning?

Good morning, sir, we have a delivery here for HeadStuckInArse, Inc., to whom should we direct this for pickup?

 

[Henry Ford]

It's going to go away and we'll all walk away knowing she broke the law.  Politicians will protect their own where it's expedient to do so.  That should never be questioned.  That this is even a possible discussion about a presidential candidate is telling of where this country is headed.

Yeah, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the current projected presidential nominee for the Dems is under public, active investigation by a dedicated force of 100 FBI agents and has been for months.

 

[Sinn Fein]

GOP voters should be jumping on board now - Bill says Hillary can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us....

He added, however, that voters should support her “if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that,” according to USA Today.

 

[Sinn Fein]

To be fair, she is the best GOP candidate still running.

 

[Guest]

What if this goes all the way... Dun Dun dun! To the PRESIDENT?!

Seriously, I believe that Hillary Clinton broke the law, but I'm not sure to the insane degree being suggested here recently.

I meant this more generally.  Laws regarding the handling of classified information must be followed religiously.  Assumptions about who should be given special treatment out of title and convenience should never enter into the conversation.  We're talking about SAP Intel, whose breech can be assumed to cause damage to national security.    

 

[pantagrapher]

GOP voters should be jumping on board now - Bill says Hillary can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us....

He added, however, that voters should support her “if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that,” according to USA Today.

Way to be on top of the latest gaffes.

 

[MaxThreshold]

GOP voters should be jumping on board now - Bill says Hillary can put the awful legacy of the last 8 years behind us....

He added, however, that voters should support her “if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that,” according to USA Today.

Conveniently leaves out the fact that it was HIS administration that was one of the catalysts of the crash in the first place.

 

[BassNBrew]

Conveniently leaves out the fact that it was HIS administration that was one of the catalysts of the crash in the first place.

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

 

[pantagrapher]

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

I actually agree with a lot of this, but I'm not really sure what Obama could have done to significantly alter it.

 

[Captain Cranks]

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

It's probably all Obama's fault and has nothing to do with Millenials deferring home ownership longer than most generations.  

We need to get back to the good old days when someone with a $40K salary could buy a $500K house.  Stupid regulations.    

 

[tommyGunZ]

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

I'd like a more specific timetable on "primed for the next" crash.  When are you projecting this massive housing crash?  Specifically.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

I'd like a more specific timetable on "primed for the next" crash.  When are you projecting this massive housing crash?  Specifically.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

I'd like a more specific timetable on "primed for the next" crash.  When are you projecting this massive housing crash?  Specifically.  

While you're at it, can you describe your solution to the housing crisis post-2009?  

 

[pantagrapher]

One thing Obama could have done was seen to it that HARP was utilized more liberally.

 

[RCon]

And Obama's has us primed for the next.  Good old Wall Street is buying homes left and right while first time homebuyers can't get into the game because the new regulations hinder the public not the big guys.  Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.  Home ownership percentages are at historic modern lows.  Rents are increasing faster than income growth making it harder for first timers to save for a home.

I actually agree with a lot of this, but I'm not really sure what Obama could have done to significantly alter it.

Well, he could have instructed DOJ not to use the "too big to jail" method of prosecution.

 

[RCon]

I'd like a more specific timetable on "primed for the next" crash.  When are you projecting this massive housing crash?  Specifically.  

Is this kind of like when people predicted that many ACA insurers would go into a death spiral in 5+ years, then you were out crowing after a year that the death spiral hadn't yet occurred?

 

[pantagrapher]

Well, he could have instructed DOJ not to use the "too big to jail" method of prosecution.

Oh yeah. That was a bad decision when he made that announcement.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Here's my strategy for a Hillary victory in the general.

I have the following assumptions:

1. Hillary has a better chance at beating Trump than whoever the candidate is coming out of a contested convention.

2. Trump is going to have a hard time getting his 1,237 delegates.

There are three very interesting Republican primaries left for my strategy -- Wisconsin, Indiana and Montana.  All three are winner-take-all with open primaries.  If Trump wins all three of these states, his chance at 1,237 is very good.

The obvious play here is to get liberals to vote Trump in these states.  Super PAC money should be spent in these states targeting liberal voters to vote Trump.

 

[The Commish]

Yeah, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the current projected presidential nominee for the Dems is under public, active investigation by a dedicated force of 100 FBI agents and has been for months.

As I've said several times now, it's going to be an epic race to the bottom.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's my strategy for a Hillary victory in the general.

I have the following assumptions:

1. Hillary has a better chance at beating Trump than whoever the candidate is coming out of a contested convention.

2. Trump is going to have a hard time getting his 1,237 delegates.

There are three very interesting Republican primaries left for my strategy -- Wisconsin, Indiana and Montana.  All three are winner-take-all with open primaries.  If Trump wins all three of these states, his chance at 1,237 is very good.

The obvious play here is to get liberals to vote Trump in these states.  Super PAC money should be spent in these states targeting liberal voters to vote Trump.

All Hillary has to do is raise Donald's obvious negatives, his complete lack of qualification, and be the informed statesman, and in the meantime walk in and scoop up all the middle and even many a right wing voter while knowing her supporters will not abandon her for anything. That's it. She can the run the ball in a full house backfield all game long and not lose this thing. Just don't screw up (or you know get indicted, though there are all sorts of permutations to that).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Last week or two, Hillary said/did these things:

- She said she plans to "put a lot of coal miners out of business."

- She said everything in Libya was great, just great, and that not a single American was lost in Libya. Really?

- She said that Nancy Reagan really helped defeat AIDS. Then she apologized because that was totes wrong.

- A report surfaced that Sidney Blumenthal was obtaining (and sending her) information possibly stolen from the NSA or CIA.

Donald Trump mentioned not a word of this. Instead he talked about his hands (a lot), attacked Megyn Kelly, suggested withdrawing from NATO, threw up something about trade leverage when asked what would happen if China occupied Japanese islands, and called for Israel to pay for its own defense while we also cut off aid to them.

I don't even want to address the legitimacy of those issues. The point is the opposing politician doesn't even have the organization or mindset to raise them.

That's what Hillary is looking at.

Hillary is looking at getting UT, MT, SC, LA, very red states which she has no business even talking about.

 

[cstu]

I actually agree with a lot of this, but I'm not really sure what Obama could have done to significantly alter it.

 Population is increasing faster than new housing supply.

For one, he could have increased federal subsidies for building affordable multi-family homes.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Donald Trump mentioned not a word of this. Instead he talked about his hands (a lot), attacked Megyn Kelly, suggested withdrawing from NATO, threw up something about trade leverage when asked what would happen if China occupied Japanese islands, and called for Israel to pay for its own defense while we also cut off aid to them.

I don't even want to address the legitimacy of those issues. The point is the opposing politician doesn't even have the organization or mindset to raise them.

I'd be more concerned about this if it was full-blown general election time.  Clinton's already hinted that she's got a whole arsenal of stuff collecting in her war chest she intends to use against Trump when the time comes.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Last week or two, Hillary said/did these things:

- She said everything in Libya was great, just great, and that not a single American was lost in Libya. Really?

- She said that Nancy Reagan really helped defeat AIDS. Then she apologized because that was totes wrong.

FWIW these are both false.  The context of the Libya quote made it perfectly clear that she was referring to not losing an American life in overthrowing Gadhafi, not, you know, ever.  It would be really weird to say that no American has ever died in Libya.

As for the AIDS thing, Clinton said that Nancy and Ron "started a national conversation" about AIDS, which is a stupid thing to say but is not the same as saying she directly helped defeat it, which would be even stupider and wronger. And in any event, nobody from the GOP is gonna hold her over the fire for being too generous regarding the legacy of the Reagans, especially when it comes to the (largely gay, minority and or drug-using) victims of AIDS.  Although I kind of want to see them try.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

FWIW these are both false.  The context of the Libya quote made it perfectly clear that she was referring to not losing an American life in overthrowing Gadhafi, not, you know, ever.  It would be really weird to say that no American has ever died in Libya.

As for the AIDS thing, Clinton said that Nancy and Ron "started a national conversation" about AIDS, which is a stupid thing to say but is not the same as saying she directly helped defeat it, which would be even stupider and wronger. And in any event, nobody from the GOP is gonna hold her over the fire for being too generous regarding the legacy of the Reagans, especially when it comes to the (largely gay, minority and or drug-using) victims of AIDS.  Although I kind of want to see them try.

Look I agree with a lot of that or some of it, but in the context of this campaign it doesn't matter. Point is Hillary is already aiming fire at Donald while he is talking about his hands and raising hair brained schemes that no one would ever contemplate and which aren't even issues. Now Donald has gone out of his way to pick a fight with Liz Warren who now has a reason to personally involve herself in the campaign. Forget all the issues, it's crazy bad politics.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd be more concerned about this if it was full-blown general election time.  Clinton's already hinted that she's got a whole arsenal of stuff collecting in her war chest she intends to use against Trump when the time comes.  

I think it is indicative of what we can expect. In recent campaigns we have seen Carville, Rove, Axelrod, Trippi and now.... Corey Lewandowski. I can't remember his bio off hand but Donald basically picked him up off he heap in NH. There is no way that guy should be in the modern electoral big leagues. He is going to get run over by Hillary's team of professionals.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think it is indicative of what we can expect. In recent campaigns we have seen Carville, Rove, Axelrod, Trippi and now.... Corey Lewandowski. I can't remember his bio off hand but Donald basically picked him up off he heap in NH. There is no way that guy should be in the modern electoral big leagues. He is going to get run over by Hillary's team of professionals.

Lewandowski was chief of staff for one of the more momorably-disgraced legislators of recent history, Bob Ney.  His resume includes being arrested bringing an illegally-possessed and illegally-carried unloaded .40 handgun, rounds of ammunition, and three magazines into the House Offices building.

 

[LAUNCH]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/10115#efmBESCAL

Sorry for format, but there is a link.

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05785665 Date: 02/29/2016 RELEASE IN FULL CONFIDENTIAL April 5, 2011 For: Hillary From: Sid Re: Backstory to Younus/Haftar conflict; Saif s play for power Later report: During the evening of April 4, 2011, sources with access to the Military Committee of the National Libyan Council (NLC) stated in confidence that rebel military officers continue to divide into factions aligned with various senior military officers and leaders in the NLC. There is also a degree of mistrust between the civilians, who have borne the majority of the fighting and regular army units that have turned against Muammar Qaddafi. Two officers in particular are vying for command of the rebel forces. Former Minister of the Interior and long-time Qaddafi loyalist, General Abdel-Fattah Younus, joined the rebels early in the struggle, and after a tense vetting process was accepted by the NLC leadership group. Younus considers himself the commander of the rebel forces; however, his position has been challenged by the arrival from the United States of Colonel Khalifa Belgesia Haftar, who commanded the Anti-Qaddafi force known as the Libyan National Army (LNA) until he was driven from Ndjamena, Chad in 1990. He took refuge in the United States, where he has lived for over twenty years. Haftar and Younus were colleagues in the Qadaffi's military forces until Haftar was captured by the Chadian Army during the Libyan invasion of Chad in 1986-87. While in custody Haftar agreed to form the anti-Qaddafi force known as the LNA, which became a particular irritant for Qaddafi. For his part, Younus worked with dissident Chadian general (and current President) Idryss Debi to overthrow Haftar's patron in N'djamena, Hussein Habre. France played an important part in the struggle for Chad, and Younus played a valuable role in organizing French Military and Intelligence support for Debi. During this period Younus established a close relationship with officers of the French external intelligence service, the Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE); a relationship that continues to this day. Younus and Debi believe that Haftar is associated with the United States Central Intelligence Agency. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05785665 Date: 02/29/2016 The resulting personal conflict between Haftar and Younus continues today, as does, in the opinion of knowledgeable sources, Younus' relationship with the DGSE. According to one source, Haftar continues to point out to the NLC that a number of the mercenaries fighting for Qaddafi are from the Chadian Gorang tribe, who, in 1989, Younus helped persuade to support Debi, then an ally of the Libyan leader. These tribal forces have continued to work for Qaddafi over the years. Younus, in turn, points out that Haftar has been living in the suburbs of Washington DC, while others struggled against Qaddafi. According to one source, the younger rebels find these arguments confusing and frustrating. (Source Comment : A knowledgeable source adds that Younus and Haftar agree on the fact that NATO forces will not have the same effect on the battlefield as the United States aircraft which launched the initial attacks against Qaddafi's forces on March 19 and 20. In particular, they are concerned that only the American A-10 « warthog » ground support aircraft are suited to deal with the remaining elements of Qaddafi's army. These officers believe that the Tornados and other sophisticated NATO aircraft are simply too fast to deal with the Libyan Army on the ground, now that much of their heavy equipment has been destroyed. One sources noted that NATO is equipped to fight the Russians, not the Libyans. The NLC plans to press United States officials for further commitment of these specialized resources. ) At the same time, rumors are circulating that Saif al-Islam, with the acceptance of his father, has forwarded a proposal to assume the reigns of power. Saif s plan suggests governing Libya under a constitutional democracy, in which he would serve as a transitional leader until formal elections could be held. This proposal is not new. Saif first launched his ideas for reform in 2004, when he enlisted the help of outside consultants to develop a plan for Libyan economic prosperity. Entitled " LibyaTomorrow" this plan soon developed from an economic and social agenda into a political plan. Several times between 2004 - 2010, Saif was asked to leave the country by his father because he proposed reform measures that were not acceptable to most of the "old guard." In his role as the President of the Qadaffi Development Foundation, Saif raised the idea of a constitutional democracy, while working to develop a constitution for Libya. Shortly before violence broke out in Libya, Saif, his colleagues, and consultants completed the final version of a proposed constitution. It never gained widespread support due to strong resistance from the "old guard." Now that one of the major figures in the "old guard movement", Musa Kusa, has defected, Saif may feel empowered to put forth this document. Another reform initiative by Saif was the development of a free press. Saif was involved in launching the first Libyan media empire, Al-Ghad, which was not technically controlled by his father. This media empire, which included print, radio and television, was run by a youthful group of Libyans who were very tech and media savvy. Al-Ghad was shut down in 2010 during a very high profile disagreement between Saif and his father over its open criticism of Libyan issues. Muammar Qaddafi threw many of these young employees in jail while advising his son to leave the country for a "cooling off' period. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05785665 Date: 02/29/2016 It is also likely that Saif's most recent plan for a constitutional democracy includes an element of freedom of the press as well as freedom of internet access. Saif and his brother Mohammed were in a very difficult battle with their younger brother, Mutassim, over the shutting down of You Tube — due to some videos of Mutassim celebrating on New Year's Eve and his father violently quashing rebellions in the West. Saif insisted on allowing You Tube to continue — but Mutassim wanted to block its access. Saif also proposed holding elections for a Libyan People's Congress. Saif's proposal almost certainly contains his ideas regarding a strong role for Libyan NGOs. Saif helped arrange for the first trip by Amnesty International to Libya to visit the prisons, and then later followed up by announcing the release of several hundred prisoners. It is likely that Saif's vision for a constitutional democracy includes an active role for non-governmental organizations. (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals, the NLC is not prepared to accept a transitional government in which a member of the Qaddafi family plays a lead role. Too much blood or too little blood has been spilled for such a compromise at this time. The NLC is incapable of consolidating military gains and is on the verge of returning to the strategic military position it had before NATO forces intervened to stop Qaddafi's siege of Benghazi. In short, their negotiating position is weak. Moreover, the NLC has few leaders of sufficient stature to head a transition government that represents a workable compromise between pro and anti Qaddafi forces. On the other hand, and in spite of the military assistance and air coverage being provided by NATO to the rebel forces, Qaddafi remains in control of his destiny. He is negotiating from a relative position of strength and the Saif proposal reflects that.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Lewandowski was chief of staff for one of the more momorably-disgraced legislators of recent history, Bob Ney.  His resume includes being arrested bringing an illegally-possessed and illegally-carried unloaded .40 handgun, rounds of ammunition, and three magazines into the House Offices building.

That's right you posted about the Ney connection before.

I don't think he has ever actually run a candidate's electoral campaign of any kind?

http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_28532424/stump-trump-lowell-native-corey-lewandowski-running-presidential

All the bad personal stuff about him aside, this is ludicrous, he's on training wheels against people who have won Formula 1 races, it's nuts.

 

[squistion]

Bob Zany ‏@bobzany 

E-Mail inventor Ray Tomlinson passed away. Per his wishes, there will be a quiet ceremony at which #HillaryClinton will delete him.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'd like a more specific timetable on "primed for the next" crash.  When are you projecting this massive housing crash?  Specifically.  

I was actually thinking about PMing you for your opinion since you were money on calling the last one.  Actually it took a little longer than you projected, but you were the only one here remotely in the ballpark.  I recall that you brought a lot of historical stats to the table regarding income vs. median home pricing.  We're getting back to pre-carash pricing in many markets.  Maybe you can weigh in on the west coast.  Do you see something different this time to prevent a crash that wasn't there before?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hypothetically the information left NSA or the originator of the Gamma to Hillary,   Indict her,

Hypothetically the information left NSA or the originator of the Gamma to Hillary's aid.  Indict them too.

Hypothetically the information left NSA or the originator of the Gamma to God knows who else in the State Department.  Indict them all,

Hypothetically the information left NSA or the originator of the Gamma to the general public when the State Department posted it online.  Indict us all,.

You're getting off track here. This is what the post says:

At minimum he's going to jail IMO.

Talking Blumenthal here.

If true, this report highlights the extent to which close Clinton friends and confidantes may soon find themselves in serious legal jeopardy

They're not talking about Hillary, her aides or anyone at State here.
 

The claim is that "At minimum he's going to jail IMO" because he gained access to classified information via  your hypothetical.  Everyone I listed - including you also gained access to that same classified information via the same hypothetical.   

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/10115#efmBESCAL

Sorry for format, but there is a link.

...Saif s plan suggests governing Libya under a constitutional democracy, in which he would serve as a transitional leader until formal elections could be held. This proposal is not new. Saif first launched his ideas for reform in 2004, when he enlisted the help of outside consultants to develop a plan for Libyan economic prosperity. Entitled " LibyaTomorrow" this plan soon developed from an economic and social agenda into a political plan. Several times between 2004 - 2010, Saif was asked to leave the country by his father because he proposed reform measures that were not acceptable to most of the "old guard." In his role as the President of the Qadaffi Development Foundation, Saif raised the idea of a constitutional democracy, while working to develop a constitution for Libya. Shortly before violence broke out in Libya, Saif, his colleagues, and consultants completed the final version of a proposed constitution. It never gained widespread support due to strong resistance from the "old guard." Now that one of the major figures in the "old guard movement", Musa Kusa, has defected, Saif may feel empowered to put forth this document. Another reform initiative by Saif was the development of a free press. Saif was involved in launching the first Libyan media empire, Al-Ghad, which was not technically controlled by his father. This media empire, which included print, radio and television, was run by a youthful group of Libyans who were very tech and media savvy. Al-Ghad was shut down in 2010 during a very high profile disagreement between Saif and his father over its open criticism of Libyan issues. Muammar Qaddafi threw many of these young employees in jail while advising his son to leave the country for a "cooling off' period. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05785665 Date: 02/29/2016 It is also likely that Saif's most recent plan for a constitutional democracy includes an element of freedom of the press as well as freedom of internet access. Saif and his brother Mohammed were in a very difficult battle with their younger brother, Mutassim, over the shutting down of You Tube — due to some videos of Mutassim celebrating on New Year's Eve and his father violently quashing rebellions in the West. Saif insisted on allowing You Tube to continue — but Mutassim wanted to block its access. Saif also proposed holding elections for a Libyan People's Congress. Saif's proposal almost certainly contains his ideas regarding a strong role for Libyan NGOs. Saif helped arrange for the first trip by Amnesty International to Libya to visit the prisons, and then later followed up by announcing the release of several hundred prisoners. It is likely that Saif's vision for a constitutional democracy includes an active role for non-governmental organizations. (Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals, the NLC is not prepared to accept a transitional government in which a member of the Qaddafi family plays a lead role. Too much blood or too little blood has been spilled for such a compromise at this time. The NLC is incapable of consolidating military gains and is on the verge of returning to the strategic military position it had before NATO forces intervened to stop Qaddafi's siege of Benghazi. In short, their negotiating position is weak. Moreover, the NLC has few leaders of sufficient stature to head a transition government that represents a workable compromise between pro and anti Qaddafi forces. On the other hand, and in spite of the military assistance and air coverage being provided by NATO to the rebel forces, Qaddafi remains in control of his destiny. He is negotiating from a relative position of strength and the Saif proposal reflects that.)

I thought I would address this. I've highlighted key portions. I guess the takeaway here is that in early April 2011 Hillary's spy/intelligence ring/network was telling her that this guy Saif was a player in the Libyan government and that he and his group could and would take steps to bring constitutional democracy to Libya.

- I guess this would be a pretty big deal if true. This would mean that the US bombed and helped overthrow Qaddafi - leading to the tri-partition of the country, chaos, the attack on the mission/annex, and the presence of Isis and AQIM we see today - when they could have possibly had a genuine democratic alternative. Interesting. Or as Jake Sullivan says there, "Very interesting."

- Not sure you had to go to wiki leaks for this, there are versions provided by State easily accessible:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05785670.pdf

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05779855.pdf

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05779841.pdf

- Hillary suggests that Jake Sullivan pass on the memo to the White House "unidentified." - There she is stripping markings, man.

- Note the "Source Comment" note - again this supposedly is the format of formal NSA/CIA/IC briefings. That may be because Drumheller/Johnson were ex-CIA. Or not. Again note at the beginning the memo states "sources with access to the Military Committee..."; well who is gaining access to those sources? That is direct human or signals intelligence. How does that land in a Sidney Blumenthal memo to Hillary?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The claim is that "At minimum he's going to jail IMO" because he gained access to classified information via  your hypothetical.  Everyone I listed - including you also gained access to that same classified information via the same hypothetical.   

Ok, it's not the "access" of class info issue the article is discussing. It's the "getting" of the intelligence. I could see this extending to Hillary but not past her.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now this is odd.

This email states:

In accordance with the policies and procedures outlined in Executive Order 12958, this e-mail is UNCLASSIFIED.

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05779655.pdf

This is an actual marked document. This seems to flip Hillary's presumption on its head, here someone marks an email as unclassified. Isn't the presumption that sensitive communications should be presumed classified unless marked otherwise?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The DIA - which is shown as having the authority in that example I posted - is the Defense Intelligence Agency. If they classify something for 20 years I think they're taking that seriously enough that won't ever happen..

We classify almost 80 million documents a year.  Almost none of them are "serious" or even have diddly squat to do with national security (this is not controversial).   So this argument that is being "taken serious" because of the markings is not one.that will be very persuasive.    

As for your point, yeah, I agree, There was also Larry Johnson. However the leaker would be the person in the originating agency. As I recall the US government is still trying to capture and indict Julian Assange in a similar 2 degrees or more situation.

Julian Assange was repackaging information to provide it to the Secretary of State?  Somebody wrote today (I think ABC) that one of the reasons that an indictment of Hillary (or anyone close to her) in this case is unlikely is that there are really no good parallels.  In fact almost no  "mishandling of classified information case" that is prosecuted is ever really predictive to other cases.  Even if you think Hillary did something wrong it takes stretching the law such as the espionage act to cover things its not really designed to cover.  

OK, found it.    The above is close enough.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Now this is odd.

This email states:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05779655.pdf

This is an actual marked document. This seems to flip Hillary's presumption on its head, here someone marks an email as unclassified. Isn't the presumption that sensitive communications should be presumed classified unless marked otherwise?

Nope!

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Interesting that today's events didn't move the odds even slightly.  Hillary still at 4/9 and Trump still at ~10/3.

Clinton with a 9.8% lead in H2H polling average too.  Those start to matter now that the election is closer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We classify almost 80 million documents a year.  Almost none of them are "serious" or even have diddly squat to do with national security (this is not controversial).   So this argument that is being "taken serious" because of the markings is not one.that will be very persuasive.    

Julian Assange was repackaging information to provide it to the Secretary of State?  Somebody wrote today (I think ABC) that one of the reasons that an indictment of Hillary (or anyone close to her) in this case is unlikely is that there are really no good parallels.  In fact almost no  "mishandling of classified information case" that is prosecuted is ever really predictive to other cases.  Even if you think Hillary did something wrong it takes stretching the law such as the espionage act to cover things its not really designed to cover.  

OK, found it.    The above is close enough.

The overclassification argument for Hillary is a lousy one. - It's not a legal defense, at all, ever, she did nothing to change the rules or even suggest that as SOS, and these arguments are intended for whistleblowers not Foia avoiders.

It's hard to believe you don't get this point. Assange is wanted because he received classified material knowingly and even conspired with Manning to get it.

The last point about the likelihood of charges is a whole matter.

Brad Moss, a Washington lawyer who deals regularly with security clearance matters, said the Justice Department could conceivably look to bring charges in the Clinton email case but prosecutors would have to decide if they "really want to take that gamble." Inquiries into mishandling of classified information generally end with a security clearance revocation rather than a criminal charge, he said.

But Ronald Sievert, a former federal prosecutor and University of Texas adjunct law professor, said an argument could be made that Clinton's creation of a private email server amounted to gross negligence.

"It's a jury issue," Sievert said.

- I have actually read that guy Moss and I respect him. - I think it's worth noting that yes people do lose their jobs, lose their security clearance, and face penalties for doing what Hillary did at a minimum, and that's just for the SBU stuff.

This is an example of one such case.

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/9th-circuit-rules-disclosure-ex-air-marshal-sensitive-security-info

Here's another:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html

I think this is what gets people in the intelligence and diplomatic community. They are warned, told often, made to sign statements, threatened, trained that if they compromise even one unmarked classified document they can lose their careers. If the document is in the Secret or above level they can land in jail. Now we know that people like Petraeus, Gonzales, others have been treated lightly or let go. Others like John Deutch have not been.

What you create here is a growing rule that someone working with classified can compromise it, even send it via (to/from) private email to a private server and have that defense that it will be non-prosecutable. That's a really serious, dangerous problem for national security.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Interesting that today's events didn't move the odds even slightly.  Hillary still at 4/9 and Trump still at ~10/3.

Clinton with a 9.8% lead in H2H polling average too.  Those start to matter now that the election is closer.

The number I saw yesterday in two polls was that Hillary was winning roughly 49-39 in both. It's a testament to her issues that she cannot hit 50% vs him right now, I'm sure she will in polling eventually and I think she will swamp him in the final, but come on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nope!

Why not?

Why did that person take the effort to mark that document unclassified using that very specific phraseology?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BFS, let me be a little more practical with you. We've all been employees at some stage. How would you feel if as an employee you had to deal with a singular rule, one which you had pounded to you day in and day out, in person, by email, by lecture, by presentation, so much so that you had to sign statements swearing you would never break that rule even to the extent that you are threatened that not only would you possibly lose your job if you violated that rule your boss would even call the cops and promises he would prosecute you, and specific laws are mentioned...

....and then an employee is caught breaking that rule. This employee is one of the most well known enforcers of this rule, has even had people fired which he said broke it.

The water cooler is active with buzz, people chatter, what will they do with him, will they call the cops, will they frogmarch him out in front of the whole company?

You wait a week, nothing happens. A month passes, nothing.

Then a year later that employee is not only not fired, he's actually promoted to CEO. And the expectation is he will just continue to enforce the rule against others, with full force.

How are the company employees feeling at that point?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The overclassification argument for Hillary is a lousy one. - It's not a legal defense, at all, ever, she did nothing to change the rules or even suggest that as SOS, and these arguments are intended for whistleblowers not Foia avoiders.

It is not a defense of anyone.  It is scoffing at the government claim that the need to keep these specific emails redacted and/or withheld from the public for reasons of "national security" trumps the public's need to know what actually happened here to make actual informed decisions.   I realize that some of you take the opinions of the security experts that speculate wildly that these things are damning, but the reality is simply that the low estimate is that most information that is classified should not be and the higher estimates is most everything should not be.  So since the odds are that none of these emails should be classified then release them!

What you create here is a growing rule that someone working with classified can compromise it, even send it via (to/from) private email to a private server and have that defense that it will be non-prosecutable. That's a really serious, dangerous problem for national security.

Huh?   

And for the billionth time!  If the content was inappropriate to emailed to a private server then it was inappropriate to email to a private account then it was inappropriate to email to a .gov account.  (i.e. the private server/private account is completely irrelevant when it comes to what can be sent.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Why not?

Why did that person take the effort to mark that document unclassified using that very specific phraseology?

It is inappropriate for any email to anyone to contain classified information.  

As for the specific executive order maybe its that " (b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. "

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It is not a defense of anyone.  It is scoffing at the government claim that the need to keep these specific emails redacted and/or withheld from the public for reasons of "national security" trumps the public's need to know what actually happened here to make actual informed decisions.   I realize that some of you take the opinions of the security experts that speculate wildly that these things are damning, but the reality is simply that the low estimate is that most information that is classified should not be and the higher estimates is most everything should not be.  So since the odds are that none of these emails should be classified then release them!

Huh?   

And for the billionth time!  If the content was inappropriate to emailed to a private server then it was inappropriate to email to a private account then it was inappropriate to email to a .gov account.  (i.e. the private server/private account is completely irrelevant when it comes to what can be sent.)

 

You have zero basis for the assertion for saying that "none" of the emails should be classified. I on the other hand have the certifications of the analysts doing the work for the intelligence community and State or other diplomatic agencies. I am personally willing to support whistle-blowers in their efforts, I am not willing to support those who advocate releasing true national secrets.

On the second point, no, there is a very big difference. The difference is that with a gov account the information or data - while yes compromised in the same way in terms of the method or media of communication - is actually additionally retained in a private location.

So that you understand:

A - Employee emails using gov account to a gov account, and that's all that is done. Where is that data? It is on a government server.

B - Employee emails using gov account to a personal account on a personal server in his home, and that's all that is done. Where is that data? It is in that person's home. You can shut down the gov account, you can shut down the personal email account and that person has that data, in his home, retained personally under his guard and control.

You acknowledge that difference, yes?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

BFS, let me be a little more practical with you. We've all been employees at some stage. How would you feel if as an employee you had to deal with a singular rule, one which you had pounded to you day in and day out, in person, by email, by lecture, by presentation, so much so that you had to sign statements swearing you would never break that rule even to the extent that you are threatened that not only would you possibly lose your job if you violated that rule your boss would even call the cops and promises he would prosecute you, and specific laws are mentioned...

....and then an employee is caught breaking that rule. This employee is one of the most well known enforcers of this rule, has even had people fired which he said broke it.

The water cooler is active with buzz, people chatter, what will they do with him, will they call the cops, will they frogmarch him out in front of the whole company?

You wait a week, nothing happens. A month passes, nothing.

Then a year later that employee is not only not fired, he's actually promoted to CEO. And the expectation is he will just continue to enforce the rule against others, with full force.

How are the company employees feeling at that point?

 

[squistion]

The number I saw yesterday in two polls was that Hillary was winning roughly 49-39 in both. It's a testament to her issues that she cannot hit 50% vs him right now, I'm sure she will in polling eventually and I think she will swamp him in the final, but come on.

Um, Saints, the difference of Hillary at 49% or Hillary at 50% would be within the margin of error. To say 49% is a testament to her issues, while 50% would not be is silly nitpicking.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You have zero basis for the assertion for saying that "none" of the emails should be classified. I on the other hand have the certifications of the analysts doing the work for the intelligence community and State or other diplomatic agencies. I am personally willing to support whistle-blowers in their efforts, I am not willing to support those who advocate releasing true national secrets.

On the second point, no, there is a very big difference. The difference is that with a gov account the information or data - while yes compromised in the same way in terms of the method or media of communication - is actually additionally retained in a private location.

So that you understand:

A - Employee emails using gov account to a gov account, and that's all that is done. Where is that data? It is on a government server.

B - Employee emails using gov account to a personal account on a personal server in his home, and that's all that is done. Where is that data? It is in that person's home. You can shut down the gov account, you can shut down the personal email account and that person has that data, in his home, retained personally under his guard and control.

You acknowledge that difference, yes?

Please link the law that states that government employees are not allowed to possess copies of their emails and other nonsecured documents.