Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[cobalt_27]

She does. She proved it in 2008, under very similar circumstances. 

She had "no outs," to borrow from a poker parlance.  Bernie's still got a pretty big play, should #### hit the fan.  Circumstances are far from being similar.  Obama was never under the cloud of indictment.

 

[squistion]

71% Democrats believe Hillary should keep trucking right on through indictment. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted

We get the leaders we deserve.  I guess we utterly and totally suck.  

Would Nixon even have to leave office in 2016?  

Depends on who "the other guy" is?  

Sad.

Rasmussen

 

[timschochet]

The 71% poll result is flawed IMO, and it demonstrates the problem with "what-if" polls. I suspect that if Hillary actually did get indicted, most Dems would change their mind and want her out of the race. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Tim, your view on Sanders is understandable, given that you don't even acknowledge the possibility of Hillary being indicted, let alone the likelihood now that it happens.

 

[IC FBGCav]

She does. She proved it in 2008, under very similar circumstances. 

Yep, if Obama had all this scandal she would have been just a peach to him.  

 

[timschochet]

She had "no outs," to borrow from a poker parlance.  Bernie's still got a pretty big play, should #### hit the fan.  Circumstances are far from being similar.  Obama was never under the cloud of indictment.

Well first off I don't think it's a big cloud myself. 

Second Hillary was much closer in votes and delegates than Bernie is now and was urged by her supporters to fight on all the way to the election. 

Finally, even if Bernie quits after next week, if worst came to worst he could still accept the nomination if Hillary was indicted. 

 

[timschochet]

Tim, your view on Sanders is understandable, given that you don't even acknowledge the possibility of Hillary being indicted, let alone the likelihood now that it happens.

It's possible. But so many in here act like it's likely. It's not. 

 

[jon_mx]

The 71% poll result is flawed IMO, and it demonstrates the problem with "what-if" polls. I suspect that if Hillary actually did get indicted, most Dems would change their mind and want her out of the race. 

Hillary has been under a criminal FBI investigation for well over a year.  She changes her story every time there is a new revelation.  I would be surprised if 29% of Democrats would even consider an indictment all that important. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's possible. But so many in here act like it's likely. It's not. 

Think of it as a starting QB with a bad rib injury, the smart thing is to prep the backup by giving him first string snaps just in case.

 

[cstu]

Hillary has been under a criminal FBI investigation for well over a year.  She changes her story every time there is a new revelation.  I would be surprised if 29% of Democrats would even consider an indictment all that important. 

There's an immense difference between the FBI investigating wrongdoing and actually indicting someone.  Sure, she'll still have some diehard support, but it's over for Hillary if she's indicted. 

 

[Henry Ford]

It's possible. But so many in here act like it's likely. It's not. 

I don't know what you put the possibility at, but let's say there's a 5% chance.  Would you like insurance against a 5% chance that Trump wins the election by default, at zero cost, or not?

 

[timschochet]

But then there's this: 57% of Democrats Want Sanders to Stay in Until Convention

And this: Bernie Repeats His Vow to Stay in Until the Convention

Nevermind that he's now within two points in California

Sorry, Tim. Wrong again. You were right about the classy part at least.

We won't know if I'm wrong about this until a few weeks from now. 

 

[bueno]

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.  

If a decent human being would drop out and Hillary isn't dropping out, the conclusion is obvious.

 

[IC FBGCav]

I don't know what you put the possibility at, but let's say there's a 5% chance.  Would you like insurance against a 5% chance that Trump wins the election by default, at zero cost, or not?

She is juggling hand grenades, she keeps adding more everyday.   BOOM comes soon.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well first off I don't think it's a big cloud myself. 

Second Hillary was much closer in votes and delegates than Bernie is now and was urged by her supporters to fight on all the way to the election. 

Finally, even if Bernie quits after next week, if worst came to worst he could still accept the nomination if Hillary was indicted. 

Depends on what you mean by quitting - and how the nomination came his way. If he suspends his campaign, he could - but he's technically still running, then. If he formally withdraws he has zero delegates.  Why not stay in, and be the easy choice with superdelegates if she drops out? In which case, why not see this thing to the end instead of suspending?

 

[squistion]

There's an immense difference between the FBI investigating wrongdoing and actually indicting someone.  Sure, she'll still have some diehard support, but it's over for Hillary if she's indicted. 

That should go without saying, but people keep acting like most Democrats and the party establishment would continue to a support a candidate whose chances of winning the general election  while under indictment would be nil.

 

[jon_mx]

That should go without saying, but people keep acting like most Democrats and the party establishment would continue to a support a candidate whose chances of winning the general election  while under indictment would be nil.

But what if her chances were still good?  An indictment does not equal guilty.  That will be just another moving of the chains. 

 

[bueno]

Over/under on how long it takes Hillary to get impeached?

 

[RCon]

The 71% poll result is flawed IMO, and it demonstrates the problem with "what-if" polls. I suspect that if Hillary actually did get indicted, most Dems would change their mind and want her out of the race. 

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[jon_mx]

Over/under on how long it takes Hillary to get impeached?

There will be articles of impeachment written by Jan. 21, 2017 if she is elected.  May not pass, but it will be there. 

 

[Guest]

USA Today Scathing Editorial

That right wing blog!  A new fact in #1 that I had not heard.  After the first hacking attempt, staffers emailed each other reminding themselves not to email Hillary about sensitive matters.  More intent, organization and awareness.

This piece certainly represents a change in tone, and is published by the editorial board.  It essentially says she was incredibly brazen and negligent and that she cannot be President without answering for it. 

Also clealry anticipates more serious legal consequences.  

Yikes!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

USA Today Scathing Editorial

That right wing blog!  A new fact in #1 that I had not heard.  After the first hacking attempt, staffers emailed each other reminding themselves not to email Hillary about sensitive matters.  More intent, organization and awareness.

This piece certainly represents a change in tone, and is published by the editorial board.  It essentially says she was incredibly brazen and negligent and that she cannot be President without answering for it. 

Also clealry anticipates more serious legal consequences.  

Yikes!

New York Daily News too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-latest-email-disaster-time-clinton-drop-article-1.2653391

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

More Podesta confessions: now he also says that Hillary learned her emails had not been captured by State's system in July 2014.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/campaign-chair-clinton-knows-email-setup-was-a-mistake?utm_term=.fsdlaGP4Bn#.jaewxRKyQk

- So - Hillary lied in her March 2015 press conference when she said the opposite.

- And she lied before Congress in fall 2015 when she said that "90%" of her emails were captured by State.

I'll give Podesta credit for finally taking this in hand and catching up to facts, but over a year of straight lying has done serious damage. So stupid.

 

[Guest]

New York Daily News too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/stasi-latest-email-disaster-time-clinton-drop-article-1.2653391

And Fortune.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/31/hillary-clinton-email-server-misstatements/

The worm has turned.  

 

[The Commish]

Like I said when this all began.  She should have just played stupid, apologized after admitting it was a mistake and moved on.  She can't get out of her own way   

 

[Guest]

More Podesta confessions: now he also says that Hillary learned her emails had not been captured by State's system in July 2014.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/campaign-chair-clinton-knows-email-setup-was-a-mistake?utm_term=.fsdlaGP4Bn#.jaewxRKyQk

- So - Hillary lied in her March 2015 press conference when she said the opposite.

- And she lied before Congress in fall 2015 when she said that "90%" of her emails were captured by State.

I'll give Podesta credit for finally taking this in hand and catching up to facts, but over a year of straight lying has done serious damage. So stupid.

That lying to Congress fact may have legs.

 

[Loan Sharks]

It sure looks like this thread could use some good news. 

Trump showed the records giving 5.6 million to veterans organizations!  So everyone who doubted his sincerity should be elated with the verification. 

 

[cstu]

Clinton, March 10: I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by.

Clinton was not lying - she believed she wasn't governed by any rules. 

 

[cstu]

Fallon, the Clinton spokesman, said “we agree in retrospect” with the IG finding that “her practice of copying aides on her emails did not end up producing a full record since State’s IT systems didn’t save everything. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t take steps to comply.”​

“Our goal was to explain her state of mind at the time, because she was copying and sending” emails to people within the State Department,” Fallon said. “She believed that all those emails were captured,” he said.​

Sounds me like it wasn't her fault that proper records were not kept.

 

[cstu]

The department did not ask the four former secretaries of state, including Clinton, to sign separation agreements certifying that they had turned over all work-related documents. Clinton has been criticized by Republican strategist Karl Rove and others — for failing to sign the statement, but that was part of the department’s “systemic weaknesses” and not unique to Clinton.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/ig-report-on-clintons-emails/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sounds me like it wasn't her fault that proper records were not kept.

Lessee - her rogue system was treated like spam, Hillary selectively forwarded on what she chose to share, she's only counting what she shared, and she destroyed the first 3-4 months of her term, she didn't give archives or IT control of her system, Mills lied about it right through 2013, and the entirety of everything electronic was destroyed in December 2014.

Yeah it's her fault.

 

[Guest]

Lessee - her rogue system was treated like spam, Hillary selectively forwarded on what she chose to share, she's only counting what she shared, and she destroyed the first 3-4 months of her term, she didn't give archives or IT control of her system, Mills lied about it right through 2013, and the entirety of everything electronic was destroyed in December 2014.

Yeah it's her fault.

JFC - suddenly she and Fallon come up with yet another fabrication of how she can possibly appear somewhat blameless, and after the last six failed iterations someone buys this?!

 

[Guest]

Lessee - her rogue system was treated like spam, Hillary selectively forwarded on what she chose to share, she's only counting what she shared, and she destroyed the first 3-4 months of her term, she didn't give archives or IT control of her system, Mills lied about it right through 2013, and the entirety of everything electronic was destroyed in December 2014.

Yeah it's her fault.

JFC - suddenly she and Fallon come up with yet another fabrication of how she can possibly appear somewhat blameless, and after the last six failed iterations someone buys this?!

 

[Poppa]

JFC - suddenly she and Fallon come up with yet another fabrication of how she can possibly appear somewhat blameless, and after the last six failed iterations someone buys this?!

“We agree in retrospect”

 

[Henry Ford]

Sounds me like it wasn't her fault that proper records were not kept.

Why does it sound like that to you?

 

[Henry Ford]

The IG report said that is not the case. It said Clinton’s method of preserving work-related emails was insufficient under the Federal Records Act.

State Department Inspector General, May 26: As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.

Which part of that isn't her fault?

 

[Joe Summer]

There will be articles of impeachment written by Jan. 21, 2017 if she is elected. May not pass, but it will be there.

You are assuming that Republicans will be able to hold their majority in Congress...

 

[tommyGunZ]

You never answered the question I posed a couple of time above.

What do you think the FBI has been doing for the last 9 months or so?  How long should it take to determine Clinton did nothing wrong?  I mean, you and @squistion seem pretty certain she did nothing legally wrong - how long should it take the FBI to reach that same conclusion.  You guys reached that decision in what, 5 minutes? 

Just seems like there is more to this to keep the FBI engaged for such a long time.

I have no idea.  I'd estimate my time spent at well over 5 minutes, but likely under the hundreds of hours you, Ham, and Saints have spent reviewing the details.

I may be wrong. Certainly wouldn't be the first time, nor the last. I just think that the story is way overblown. The reality is compliance with email retention policies has never been a priority issue, and it's only one now because lots of folks have a political interest in making it an issue. 

I certainly don't remember the 22 million emails deleted by the Bush administion causing this much uproar, do you?  Was there even a thread about it?  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Which part of that isn't her fault?

All of it.

I blame Bush.

 

[Guest]

Heard an interview on NPR with author Pat Conroy, about his father whom was just an awful man and served as the inspiration for The Great Santini. 

Gist was after decades of horrible abuses to his mother, she left the dad. 

Conroy was in a bar with the old man, who broke into uncontrollable sobs. Finally, Conroy thought, after all these years his father finally has a moment of introspection, of contrition - of humanity.  

"I know where I went wrong!" the dad sobbed...  "I was just too good to her."

This reminds me of the psychology of Hillary Clinton.

 

[tommyGunZ]

She had "no outs," to borrow from a poker parlance.  Bernie's still got a pretty big play, should #### hit the fan.  Circumstances are far from being similar.  Obama was never under the cloud of indictment.

LOL.  She had more popular votes than Obama, and was much closer in pledged delegates than Bernie is.

Can you imagine the level of "IT'S RIGGED!!!!!!" we would be hearing from the Sanders camp and supporters if the numbers were identical to '08?  

 

[cstu]

Why does it sound like that to you?

Was she CC'ing aides on every email?  If so, then the emails should have been archived since they went over the government system. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I certainly don't remember the 22 million emails deleted by the Bush administion causing this much uproar, do you?  Was there even a thread about it?  

I just want to say Hillary & Friends were offered this position last year. I may have raised it myself. Hillary has spent an awful lot of time and trouble straight up lying on this issue and making her supporters carry water up hills just to arrive at [VRWC + Others Did It = No Problemo].

 

[Sinn Fein]

Sounds me like it wasn't her fault that proper records were not kept.

Well, she was SOS, so ultimately ensuring that all records of the SOS's office are preserved properly is ultimately her responsibility.

Not sure how this failure of leadership gets glossed over so easily.

***Nobody is saying she has to write the record retention policy for the department and ensure compliance - but she has underlings who report to her, who do have that responsibility.  Her role should have been to ensure that happened, and that they upgraded the IT infrastructure that was apparently so terrible.

 

[jon_mx]

Fallon, the Clinton spokesman, said “we agree in retrospect” with the IG finding that “her practice of copying aides on her emails did not end up producing a full record since State’s IT systems didn’t save everything. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t take steps to comply.”

“Our goal was to explain her state of mind at the time, because she was copying and sending” emails to people within the State Department,” Fallon said. “She believed that all those emails were captured,” he said.​

That doesn't sound very convenient.   

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Tommy thinks the issue is she deleted emails. Cute. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Such a ####ty thought process - even in retrospect.

Here are my emails world - just research the inboxes of anyone I might have corresponded with in the government and you should have a complete record of all my emails - except the ones I sent to people outside the government.  But, I don't count those as work emails, so no big loss.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Running against a 73 year old socialist jew, one would hope the establishment candidate with all the advantages--and proclaimed by some as the most qualified candidate ever--would have swatted away like a fly off her shoulder...and not lost 21 contests or had to carry the fight into June because she didn't have the required number of delegates. 

25+ years of Republican talking points and attacks have obviously resonated with conservatives as well as some progressives.  Facts be damned. 

 

[squistion]

25+ years of Republican talking points and attacks have obviously resonated with conservatives as well as some progressives.  

Facts be damned. 

Well, at least they are consistent in that respect.

 

[Henry Ford]

Was she CC'ing aides on every email?  If so, then the emails should have been archived since they went over the government system. 

1. No.  Unequivocally, she was not cc'ing aides on every email.  She doesn't even contend that she cc'd aides on every email, merely that "90%" of her emails should have been archived because of cc'ing and/or forwarding.

2. No.  She's aware that she was being shunted into spam folders because of her server, and therefore there's no way that all of her emails would have been archived even if she had cc'd on every email (which she didn't.)

3. Even if I cc'd someone in my firm on every email, the cc'd (and especially the forwarded) version isn't the same as a full record of an email.  A federal record (indeed, any company record) of emails includes the original email and every copy sent out, whether in physical or electronic format.