This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There are two separate laws concerning disclosure of classified material which could trip up Hillary. One requires intentional disclosure and one requires gross negligence. So it does matter, just not in both cases. Obama laid out how he would defend Hillary under each of the laws.
Have to think the not knowing what the Feds do or don't have has to stress Hillary out a little.
Quite probable. At least a major part of the story. Clinton's biggest mistake was co-mingling her work and her 'private' emails. You tend to lose that wall of separation when you do so. She tried to use cleverly designed rules to eliminate all non-work emails in a way which might provide her cover in any obstruction of justice charges, but if particularly incriminating emails like ones to Blumenthal or other key people were deleted under those rules, it will not be good for her.
Plenty of black activists, scholars and pundits are already upset over Bill's performance in Philadelphia, to say nothing of the reforms he pushed while in office. Many of these people are getting more vocal with each Clinton misstep. The black political class has always been quick to cover for Bill and Hillary, and ignore their obvious slights. I don't think it's safe to assume they'll do that forever. Or even through this election.
I like you as a poster Sinn Fein but I really think you'll look back at posts like this a year from now and realize that you went way, way out into la-la land during this election. The idea that there isn't a "large portion" of democrats who want Hillary is patently absurd.
The silence concerning these 30k "private" emails has been deafening. There hasn't been a peep about them.
Or an ingenious kind of deflecting. If everyone is talking about my clothes, then no one is talking about my FBI investigation :cackle:
According to the White House spokesman everything Obama knows about this he learned from the news, like the rest of us.
In Tim's world, they meet for tea parties on a weekly basis in the rose garden.
It is amazing though, how often do you see two politicians under FBI investigation make an outright racist joke - together - and see it get so little press attention? The joke was doubly racist, really, you have the epithet and the slur. What true liberal would ever do or say such a thing? You and I would both be disgusted by such a suggestion, so would most normal decent people.
Politicians do not get clearances. They are granted access to information on a need to know basis under the authority of their elected position. If a President requires information, no one has the authority to deny that access.
That's written by the actual publisher, Jason Easley. It doesn't take long to see he is rabidly pro-Hillary and extremely partisan. I think the president's words are for those who are already convinced and want to hear reassuring noises. As I said before there will be a grab-bag of sticks and rocks which will be used to defend what the DOJ does. We can just add throw the president's comments in. It is telling he has to do it in the first place though.
Did not know this. So -- what accountability does the President and Congress have if they did what Hillary did? Do they sign a similar NDA, and undergo similar training?
Maybe one point here is we should not be electing people on the federal level who could not get clearance as normal civilians.
I find comments about hillary's looks and weight to be sexist because I consider her to be pretty much standard weight for a woman of that age and we don't say that male politicians are ugly. Maybe if they were incredibly weird looking it would be called out, but by and large their looks go unnoticed to men.
I love the fact that you blast this piece in part because neither Obama or this zealot have visibility into the investigation. Yet that hasn't stopped you from waxing on about this security review for the last 6 months.
"Security review?" So deranged.
I'm guessing you have inside info on this from the direct sources, right? You surely wouldn't be speculating on something in which you had no visibility.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0WY5Q0
The FBI does security reviews? Stop parroting false propaganda talking points and think for yourself.
Immunity given... For example. State told to stand down... Another. Hacker extradited is somewhat speculative, but most likely related to what is very much not a security review.
Mills, Abedin, Sullivan, Samuelson, Reines, Pagliano.... at least 6 have criminal law attorneys representing them. Good point.
Good. It will be very hard to argue that whoopsing with SAP data is not damaging. If this is coming down to a legal argument email by email as to whether national security was damaged, I love the chances of indictment - especially with the breadth of content. A year of investigating between FBI and NSA can be argued to have diverted enough resources to have caused harm. I'm imagining all that needs to be established is a reasonable case that the determination should rest with a jury.
True, but #I'mwithHam on the point of Obama giving a half-hearted defense of Clinton in this case (if you can call it a defense at all). I finally got around to listening to the entire interview, and it sounded like classic Obama hedging; he knows what he does and does not know.
Well IMO yes in dry, neutral terms it should be a jury decision. IMO, it should go to court. Admittedly I'm not qualified, someone like Henry can speak to that stuff, but to me if two normal people could differ on the application of the facts that's a jury decision. But we already know there is different treatment for the Royals vs the Plebeians. And I don't think Obama (or Jarrett) has to actually talk to Lynch about this, Lynch is going to do what protects the president (and now not only is the Dem nominee at risk, but the president himself has put his credibility on the line twice), he knows that. - I think the FBI has to come up with a bombshell at this point: Lazar/Guccifer to testify he accessed Hillary's data and that it was incredibly easy, like the Password was "Chelsea", such that every foreign intelligence agency and probably some kids in their parents' basement had it, or maybe Pagliano and Samuelson testify that what Hillary told them consciously to do to hide/destroy classified data or Foundation secrets, or Pagliano says Hillary told him the point was to avoid or defy or work around the NSA, or after the interview Hillary is found to have lied because of prior testimony. There is also the Pagliano employment situation at State which is definitely a two person crime, he was the payee, Hillary was the payor. There has to be one or more game-changers. But as we know this thing has only marched forward, never backward.
Yes. In corruption cases down here we've had aides to politicians or people accused in criminal RICO start out with one attorney together. At some point the smart thing is for them to get their own counsel because basically they are there with one lawyer who is friendly to the main cog in the wheel and that lawyer is basically steering things in a way that is best for that person who is really the one the Feds are after. If they get smart they look after their own interests and get their own lawyer. Now that's pretty small town stuff compared to this. This lawyer Wilkinson representing the Hillary 5 happens to be married to David Gregory of NBC, was married by Merrick Garland, she is a Washington player of the highest order and is a power base to herself. She just split off to start her own firm this January. They're going into battle walking behind a tank.
i spoke to an attorney friend about this. his comment:
I have no idea why New Yorkers aren't embracing their own for the interloper. But the numbers are the numbers.
Great stuff, thanks. Definitely something to watch.
