What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
cobalt_27 said:
Not sure if this has been posted / discussed yet, but it's not for those with a weak stomach or an inclination to think this email thing isn't really, really bad news.

This is coming from a legal scholar and one who is a registered (D) and would support Hillary if she could escape indictment.  Pretty clear he doesn't think that's happening.  
Click to expand...


And as for putative nominee Hillary Clinton in this fanciful scenario, she would receive an absolutely irresistible benefit in exchange for her totally shocking agreement to withdraw:  Either minimal prosecution, if at all (see, for example, what was done with a “nolo” plea in the case of then-Vice President Spiro T. Agnew in October 1973), or a presidential pardon, or both.  
Click to expand...
- I think everyone has forgotten about Agnew as precedent, but that would have placed the decision in October, which btw is when Biden made his decision not to run IIRC.

Possibilities besides outright indictment could include:

- nolo contendere (Agnew),

- pleading down to misdemeanor (Petraeus), or

- clemency (John Deutch got this from Bill Clinton).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yeah he's a Democrat, but he's been ripping Hillary for a few months now, and not everybody thinks very much of his analysis: 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/16/1371415/-eGhazi-Don-Metcalfe-appears-to-be-an-incompetent-crackpot

We'll see. 
Click to expand...


- I can see disagreeing with him but why is he a "crackpot"?

He served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, during which time he handled information-disclosure policy issues on the dozens of Clinton Administration scandals that arose within public view, as well as two that did not.  Since retiring in 2007, he has taught secrecy law at American University’s Washington College of Law.  
Click to expand...

 
timschochet said:
I really don't think it is, Cobalt. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's a very pertinent point. 
Click to expand...
Again you're looking at a 14 month old diary already proved wrong.

Metcalfe wrote this 2 weeks ago presaging the IG report.

http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clinton-absolutely-violated-the-federal-records-act-heres-why-she-cant-be-punished/

What you should take from Metcalfe's point is that even though Hillary is arguably the greatest violator of the PRA in US history those are just civil laws which have no real penalties for those who have already left office. That's not true on the state level but it's apparently true on the federal level.

It does impact her defenses on the criminal stuff though IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I really don't think it is, Cobalt. We'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's a very pertinent point. 
Click to expand...
"[The Inspector General's report] shreds the defense that 'Well, Colin Powell did it too' into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust." Link.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
"The Inspector General's report shreds the defense that 'Well, Colin Powell did it too' into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust." Link.
Click to expand...
Today is the day that so many of us have been waiting for: The State Department’s Office of Inspector General has released its report about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. The report does not uncover any smoking guns -- no records of Clinton saying “Heh, heh, heh, they’ll never FOIA my e-mails NOW!!!!” -- what it does lay out is deeply troubling. Even though her supporters have already begun the proclamations of “nothing to see here, move along.” - Hi Scho!  :bye:

It lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules: It was not normal, and was not allowed by the government rules in place at the time “The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which “has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information.”

It also shreds the defense that “Well, Colin Powell did it too” into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust. As the report makes very clear, there are substantial differences between what Powell did and what Clinton did:

  • Powell says he set up a private e-mail account, in addition to his internal account, because at the time, the State Department “email system in place only only permitted communication among Department staff. He therefore requested that information technology staff install the private line so that he could use his personal account to communicate with people outside the Department.” This is a quite plausible reason that, around the turn of the millennium, a secretary of state would have wanted to use his own account. Powell seems not to have done enough to ensure that those records were maintained, which is a problem (though it’s not clear that he was aware that he should have turned those e-mails over). However, as far as I can tell, the most plausible explanation of Clinton’s behavior is that she set up her e-mail server for the express purpose of keeping those e-mails from being archived as records (and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests), which is a great deal more problematic than setting up an inadequately archived e-mail system because there’s no other way to use an increasingly vital communications technology.
     
  • Powell had an outside line set up in his office, into which he plugged a laptop, which he used alongside his State Department computer. The IT department was, in other words, aware that this was going on, and it seems to have come up in discussions of his drive to get everyone at State access to the Internet at their desk. While the quality of information about Powell’s Internet usage is not as high as it is about Clinton’s (after 10 years, memories fade, people become hard to contact, and records degrade), there’s no indication that he was less than transparent with staff. On the other hand, it’s quite clear that folks at State had no idea what was going on with Clinton’s e-mail server, and troublingly, at least two people who asked questions about it were apparently told to shut up and never raise the subject again.
     
  • Three things have changed pretty dramatically since Powell’s day: the magnitude (and appreciation) of cybersecurity threats; the quality of the State Department systems; and the government rules surrounding both recordkeeping and cybersecurity. One can argue that Powell should not have used a private computer during his tenure, but he seems to have done so in consultation with the IT folks, at a time when the policy surrounding these things was “very fluid” and the State Department “was not aware of the magnitude of the security risks associated with information technology.” By 2009, the magnitude of the risks was clear, and the policy was also much clearer. As far as the OIG could determine, Clinton took no action to ensure that she was in compliance with that policy, which, in fact, she emphatically was not. Officials at State told the OIG in no uncertain terms that they would not have approved her reliance on a personal e-mail server.
     
  • The OIG found only three instances in which State employees had relied exclusively on personal e-mail: Powell, Clinton and Ambassador J. Scott Gration, the U.S. emissary to Kenya from 2011 to 2012. Gration, who served under Clinton, was in the middle of a disciplinary process initiated against him for this e-mail use (among other things) when he resigned. So it is not only impossible to argue that this was somehow in compliance with State’s guidelines, but also impossible to argue that Clinton might have thought it was in compliance with requirements, unless she somehow failed to notice when or why her ambassador to Kenya went missing.
     
  • The OIG found evidence that the server was attacked, and that Clinton’s staff members (and presumably Clinton herself) were aware of it (Clinton at one point seems to have expressed concern that people might be trying to hack her email). These incidents should have been reported to computer security personnel, but OIG found no evidence that they were. Clinton’s supporters have offered the wan defense that “attacked” doesn’t mean “actually hacked,” but of course, since they didn’t report it, there was no timely investigation, so we don’t really know what happened, or even whether her server setup and/or server administrator were sophisticated enough to detect a penetration if one had taken place.
     
  • This is the most profoundly amazing part of the whole story: Clinton’s server administrator was hired by State as a political appointee, from which position he continued to provide support to Clinton’s private e-mail server during working hours, without telling anyone this was happening:

    The DCIO and CIO, who prepared and approved the Senior Advisor’s annual evaluations, believed that the Senior Advisor’s job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department. They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary’s email system during working hours. They also told OIG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time government employee.


    Clinton apparently paid him for the work, but it is basically impossible to believe that she didn’t know this was happening (if her e-mail malfunctioned during the workday, did she expect to wait until 8 or 9 that night for it to come back up?) or that she thought it was okay to hire your private server administrator as a political appointee (a diplomatic political appointee in the IT department?) and then have him keep an eye on your private server from his government office. This has an unpleasant whiff of Tammany Hall about it.
It’s really hard to come away from reading this report thinking “Yup, just an honest mistake.” Or indeed, “just a mistake, no big deal.” Or even “no worse than others have done.” I worked in bank IT for several years before I went to business school, and when this story first broke, I enjoyed an amusing hour or so envisioning what regulators would have said if we’d tried any of these sorts of excuses on them. Since then, I’ve had several such conversations with folks who are still laboring in the trenches of the securities industry, and their bitter laughter still rings in my ears. Why is Clinton being held to a lower standard?



 



Well, because she’s a Clinton, and the Clintons have always acted as if the rules applied only to others. And given that Democrats boxed themselves into her name on the ticket so early on, Team Blue had little choice but to rally around and pretend that this is just a minor peccadillo, like forgetting to date the signature on your FEC filings. Lord knows, this election cycle, there’s good reason to view this sort of behavior as the lesser of two evils.

But it isn’t minor. Setting up an e-mail server in a home several states away from the security and IT folks, in disregard of the rules designed to protect state secrets and ensure good government records, and then hiring your server administrator to a political slot while he keeps managing your system on government time … this is not acceptable behavior in a government official. If Clinton weren’t the nominee, or if she had an R after her name rather than a D, her defenders would have no difficulty recognizing just how troubling it is.

That doesn’t mean you necessarily have to prefer Trump to her. Back when I was surveying #NeverTrump voters, I heard from more than one conservative intelligence type who basically said “I think Clinton should be in jail for what she did, and I still think she’s a better choice than Trump for the presidency.”

Politics is not simply a team sport, and good government is only possible if we’re willing to call out misbehavior no matter who does it. Even if we still hold our nose and pull the lever for the misbehaver come November.

 
The tech person as political appointee is a really good point, basically Hillary ran her own IT outside of and separate from State. A public function was operated at the sole discretion and whim of a public official on a private and personal basis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee said:
:shrug:

Might as well write in Fire Marshall Bill if you plan on sitting out
Click to expand...
I was just thinking about how Bryan Cranston pretending to be LBJ would wipe the floor with Trump. 

bananafish said:
Did we know this already? I didn't.

FBI probe of Clinton email expands to second data company

Sounds like they might have those 30,000 deleted emails but it's unclear at this point.

"Starting to think this whole thing is covering up some shady ####."
Click to expand...
Don't get my hopes up man.

 
pantagrapher said:
Guys, the email thing is going nowhere. It's time to let it go.
Click to expand...
Hillary keeps it's pertinent.  She has consistently lied about it for a year.   She could have got ahead of this issue from the start, but she hid, erased, & lied about this mess from the beginning.  She dug herself a hole & now can't get out.  It's her own fault & nobody else.

 
timschochet said:
cstu said:
All her life she has fought for civil rights, children's rights and women's rights. We know what she stands for because she has been standing for those things forever: as first lady, senator and secretary of state. And she is standing for them now.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not sure what Rich is reading. 

Civil rights, children's rights, women's rights, these things are very important to me. It's a big part of the reason that I like and support Hillary Clinton. Apparently a lot of people posting here don't care about these issues. 
Click to expand...
oh bull#### :lmao:  

Plenty of us care about them and we can find candidates other than Hillary that care about them plus a lot more things we care about.  As it pertains to Hillary, the list above is pretty exhaustive as to what she seems to really care about.  That's why people look elsewhere because while admirable and no question genuine, they aren't enough to distinguish her from anyone else that's remotely "socially liberal" much less an actual liberal.  Not to mention the choices who have actually taken action on these topics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is really time for her to stop running for president.   It is only a matter of time now before she is indicted.   The longer she stays in the race the worse it is for real democrats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irishidiot said:
Hillary keeps it's pertinent.  She has consistently lied about it for a year.   She could have got ahead of this issue from the start, but she hid, erased, & lied about this mess from the beginning.  She dug herself a hole & now can't get out.  It's her own fault & nobody else.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting but let it go.

 
timschochet said:
It certainly is. Hillary needs to clinch the nomination next week, Bernie needs to bow out and endorse her when that happens, and the Dems need to have a unified convention. 
Click to expand...
Actually Bernie is handily beating Trump, while Trump is starting to catch up to Hillary, so it's almost as though a vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump at this point. Yikes, don't you have a vote coming up? What are you going to do vote for Bernie or vote for Trump?

 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/31/major-environmental-group-makes-first-ever-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton/

A major environmental group, the NRDC Action Fund, endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday in its first political endorsement in a presidential election.

In a statement, the NRDC Action Fund, a political affiliate of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the unprecedented endorsement reflects a need for left-leaning groups to unite against Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

“Hillary Clinton is an environmental champion with the passion, experience and savvy to build on President Obama’s environmental legacy,” Rhea Suh, president of the NRDC Action Fund, said in a statement. “More than any other candidate running, Hillary Clinton understands the environmental challenges America faces, and her approach to solving them is grounded in the possibility and promise our democracy affords us.”

Suh specifically cited Trump's recent energy speech in North Dakota as one of the main rationales for the announcement.

"Donald Trump, on the other hand, has recently outlined a disastrous and frankly nonsensical environmental agenda — suggesting that he would tear up the Paris Climate Agreement, and that there is no drought in California," Suh said. "His plan for his first 100 days would take us back 100 years, and America cannot afford to indulge his climate conspiracy theories."

The endorsement is a blow to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who hopes to upset Clinton next week in the Democratic primary in California, a state where environmental issues loom large.

The NRDC Action Fund's move to endorse Clinton comes at a critical time for her as she seeks to dispatch Sanders and pivot to a general-election fight against Trump. Clinton may also be facing a tougher-than-expected challenge from Sanders in California. Her campaign announced Monday that she would spend more time than originally planned campaigning in the state this week.

It is the latest sign that Democrats and their allies are urging their supporters to unite behind Clinton, who is expected to clinch the Democratic nomination before polls close on the West Coast on June 7 after securing delegates in New Jersey's primary the same day.

Hillary Clinton is all that stands between us and Donald Trump’s radical proposals to reverse decades of environmental progress,” NRDC Action Fund Board Chair Patricia Bauman said in a statement. “We’re making this historic endorsement because it’s critical for all of us to unite behind an environmental champion and help her beat Donald Trump.”

 
timschochet said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/31/major-environmental-group-makes-first-ever-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton/

A major environmental group, the NRDC Action Fund, endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday in its first political endorsement in a presidential election.

In a statement, the NRDC Action Fund, a political affiliate of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the unprecedented endorsement reflects a need for left-leaning groups to unite against Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.

“Hillary Clinton is an environmental champion with the passion, experience and savvy to build on President Obama’s environmental legacy,” Rhea Suh, president of the NRDC Action Fund, said in a statement. “More than any other candidate running, Hillary Clinton understands the environmental challenges America faces, and her approach to solving them is grounded in the possibility and promise our democracy affords us.”

Suh specifically cited Trump's recent energy speech in North Dakota as one of the main rationales for the announcement.

"Donald Trump, on the other hand, has recently outlined a disastrous and frankly nonsensical environmental agenda — suggesting that he would tear up the Paris Climate Agreement, and that there is no drought in California," Suh said. "His plan for his first 100 days would take us back 100 years, and America cannot afford to indulge his climate conspiracy theories."

The endorsement is a blow to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who hopes to upset Clinton next week in the Democratic primary in California, a state where environmental issues loom large.

The NRDC Action Fund's move to endorse Clinton comes at a critical time for her as she seeks to dispatch Sanders and pivot to a general-election fight against Trump. Clinton may also be facing a tougher-than-expected challenge from Sanders in California. Her campaign announced Monday that she would spend more time than originally planned campaigning in the state this week.

It is the latest sign that Democrats and their allies are urging their supporters to unite behind Clinton, who is expected to clinch the Democratic nomination before polls close on the West Coast on June 7 after securing delegates in New Jersey's primary the same day.

Hillary Clinton is all that stands between us and Donald Trump’s radical proposals to reverse decades of environmental progress,” NRDC Action Fund Board Chair Patricia Bauman said in a statement. “We’re making this historic endorsement because it’s critical for all of us to unite behind an environmental champion and help her beat Donald Trump.”
Click to expand...
They'll need to start warming up another endorsement in the bullpen.

Agreed everything possible needs to happen to prevent Trump from getting into office.  Which is why many of us have maintained from day one that it is important to present an alternative to Trump that is not a shady, crooked politician, who just so happens will likely be slammed by the FBI this summer and potentially indicted.  

Sooner rather than later we need a (D) nominee, and it's a mistake to put Hillary out there.  A mistake that will have grave implications.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Tim - you do know she can't "clinch" the nomination on June 7, right?

Super Delegates are free to vote for whomever they please...
Click to expand...
That's technically true, but the Supers are not going to defy the majority; they never have. So after New Jersey the networks will report that Hillary has clinched and they should. 

 
timschochet said:
Sorry guys this argument is over. It has been for some time. Hillary is the nominee. 
Click to expand...
Tim, you really need to plug your ears and close your eyes if you want to get through the next few months in one piece.  Her candidacy is ruined.  It's done.  Although I'm sad for you and the cause you're championing, we must move forward--NOW--and find someone else who can beat Trump. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
Tim, you really need to plug your ears and close your eyes if you want to get through the next few months in one piece.  Her candidacy is ruined.  It's done.  Although I'm sad for you and the cause you're championing, we must move forward--NOW--and find someone else who can beat Trump. 
Click to expand...
Colbalt, one of us is dreaming and it not me. If you want to prevent Trump, there is no alternative to Hillary. If that's not clear to you now, it will be in only a few weeks. 

 
If you're planning on sitting out otherwise, a third party vote is a reasonable way to go.  A lot of states, if a third party candidate gets something lile 5-10% of the vote, that party gets an automatic berth onto the ballot next election just like the dems and republicans

 
timschochet said:
Colbalt, one of us is dreaming and it not me. If you want to prevent Trump, there is no alternative to Hillary. If that's not clear to you now, it will be in only a few weeks. 
Click to expand...
Do you mean when the FBI releases its findings or when she clinches the delegate threshold?  Because the latter won't really matter when the former rips her to shreds.

 
timschochet said:
Sorry guys this argument is over. It has been for some time. Hillary is the nominee. 
Click to expand...
That article you posted says Hillary has had to change her plans and is going to CA to campaign. I just heard on npr that Hillary will be delaying her pivot to Republicans until the CA race is over. - It doesn't sound real 'over.'

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
If you're planning on sitting out otherwise, a third party vote is a reasonable way to go.  A lot of states, if a third party candidate gets something lile 5-10% of the vote, that party gets an automatic berth onto the ballot next election just like the dems and republicans
Click to expand...
This is where I am right now.

I have not paid too close attention to Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, but one of them is likely going to get my vote.

I'd really like to see one, presumably Johnson, get enough early support to get on the debate stage - but 15% is a pretty high hurdle given that most of the public is conditioned to taking just the two choices presented by the Dems and GOP.

 
squistion said:
NBC Nightly NewsVerified account ‏@NBCNightlyNews 20m20 minutes ago

California Gov. Jerry Brown says he will vote for Hillary Clinton in "only path forward to stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump."
Click to expand...
Too big to fail, I guess.

That is a big endorsement (especially consider Brown was Bill's Sanders back in the day and took the opposite tack when it was his campaign...), but under FBI investigation in June, neck and neck with Donald and losing CA will not be a good look for the idea of 'inevitability.'

 
Any decent human being would know they are a tarnished candidate and just drop out.   I don't understand why she continues to run, it only hurts the democratic party.  

 
pantagrapher said:
Not sure why expressing fear of a Trump presidency bothers some people so much. 
Click to expand...
You were told that you were picking the weakest arrow from the quiver, threw all the other arrows out, now you say the stakes are incredibly higher than ever if this one shot doesn't hit the target, maybe you should reconsider how we got here.

 
The Commish said:
The use of the :lmao:  is not a sign of being bothered, it's of being entertained, especially on the background of the incessant whining that the GOP uses the "fear card" to win support and votes.
Click to expand...
The GOP taps into irrational fears—like Muslims taking over America and instituting Shariah Law while the government confiscates your guns. If you think talking about the danger of a Trump presidency is similarly irrational, that's cool. I just don't get it.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
264K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top