Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[tommyGunZ]

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].

False conclusions for $1000 Alex.  

 

[Guest]

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?  

The reason this is an issue has very little to do with the compliance issue itself.  The major issue is the cavalier, reckless and possibly materially harmful mishandling of state secrets, in violation of the law.  What's relevant about the details from last week's IG report is that it establishes that the intent in setting up a private server to begin with was to hide records.  That the action of doing so put those secrets at risk is what the story is. Non-compliance reveals the motive for the crime - it isn't the (major) crime itself.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

False conclusions for $1000 Alex.  

What you posted was definitely a part of that simple equation.

 

[cobalt_27]

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  She doesn't even contend that she cc'd aides on every email, merely that "90%" of her emails should have been archived because of forwarding.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being shunted into spam folders because of her server, and therefore there's no way that all of her emails would have been archived even if she had cc'd on every email (which she didn't.)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.

Not to mention the fact that the regulations make/made it clear it is the responsibility of each agent to preserve email official communication.  It does not carry a provision that that responsibility be thrust on others. 

i can see why this is so hard for the Hillary camp to grasp so much of the other stuff, if is the level of confusion they're dealing with.

 

[Guest]

Facts be damned. 

No!  Facts be shouted from every rooftop and mountain top...  Because the facts are what are going to get Hillary Clinton indicted.

 

[Henry Ford]

1. Yes!  Of course it is.  Everything seems just fine in this instance.

2. Yes! Absolutely.  There's no reason to be concerned at all, as we all agree.

3. Frankly, this just seems like a witch hunt.

In case the reason that email forwarding isn't an official record of emails isn't clear to anyone, here's a good example of why.

 

[Loan Sharks]

 Facts be damned. 

Can we wipe those facts away with a rag? 

 

[Guest]

At this point, the whole issue is a case study in the irrational flaws in the human psyche.  It's almost like hypnosis.  The truth has been clearly established, and yet large pockets of the population simply refuse to acknowledge what is apparent in favor of a fantastical account that has no basis in reality.  Goes to show how powerful effective spin doctors are, and how influential is the media in interfering with critical thought.

This is another reason I think the indictment is coming.  The FBI isn't looking through an emotional lens.  There view is clear, and what happened was illegal - and shrouded in many lies.

 

[cstu]

In case the reason that email forwarding isn't an official record of emails isn't clear to anyone, here's a good example of why.

I never said it was a good system...

 

[Henry Ford]

I never said it was a good system...

Then you should acknowledge that it's her fault that email records are incomplete.  Forwarded emails are simply not a reasonable substitute for actual emails.  Ever.

Oh, and she's aware of this.  As her camp is happy to point out, she's a lawyer.

 

[IC FBGCav]

At this point, the whole issue is a case study in the irrational flaws in the human psyche.  It's almost like hypnosis.  The truth has been clearly established, and yet large pockets of the population simply refuse to acknowledge what is apparent in favor of a fantastical account that has no basis in reality.  Goes to show how powerful effective spin doctors are, and how influential is the media in interfering with critical thought.

I think it has more with that people don't really care about the truth, they would rather be right or their denial serves their own needs.

 

[The Commish]

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?  

still with this??  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can we wipe those facts away with a rag? 

With ShamWow, yes.

 

[timschochet]

So- regardless of the fact that Hillary should clinch the nomination in New Jersey prior to the voting being over in California, it would NOT be a good look for her to lose California. The two latest polls are very mixed: one shows her ahead by 2 points, the other by double digits. 

So she's going there early to campaign. And she got Jerry Brown's endorsement (a big deal; Jerry has really salvaged his image in recent years.) Hopefully that will be enough. The problem is it's an open primary and I suspect lots of Trump supporters might vote for Bernie looking to weaken Hillary. So we'll see. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What did Clinton provide to the State Department?

On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department's record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by "state.gov" accounts.

Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department's record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.

Secretary Clinton believed her emails to and from officials on their state.gov accounts were automatically captured and preserved in the State Department’s electronic system.

It was not until the Department contacted her in 2014 that she learned this was not the case.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/campaign-chair-clinton-knows-email-setup-was-a-mistake?utm_term=.we473eRw7#.cgZVY4dyV

- State asked for Hillary's emails in July 2014.

- The "90%" figure was an outright lie made up out of nothing.

- Hillary destroyed the entire electronic copy of her email, both personal and official, in December 2014.

 

[Poppa]

At this point, the whole issue is a case study in the irrational flaws in the human psyche.  It's almost like hypnosis.  The truth has been clearly established, and yet large pockets of the population simply refuse to acknowledge what is apparent in favor of a fantastical account that has no basis in reality.  Goes to show how powerful effective spin doctors are, and how influential is the media in interfering with critical thought.

This is another reason I think the indictment is coming.  The FBI isn't looking through an emotional lens.  There view is clear, and what happened was illegal - and shrouded in many lies.

At this point, the whole issue is a case study in the irrational flaws in the human psyche.

I thought you were going to then speak of Hillary here ~ stymied in her final quest for the ring by an absolutely fascinating dunghill of her own making...

 

[sho nuff]

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

Articles of impeachment seems to be a reason to vote for her if she has a solid running mate.

I'd take a decent running mate of hers over both she and Trump.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

While he was on government payroll.  This is no different than having people on government payroll cleaning your house during work hours.  That right there is a clear cut felony assuming the facts of the IG report.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

While he was on government payroll.  This is no different than having people on government payroll cleaning your house during work hours.  That right there is a clear cut felony assuming the facts of the IG report.  

She paid him separately.

Don't know if he had to go through the same process Huma did to be paid for 2 or 3 full time jobs.

 

[jon_mx]

She paid him separately.

Don't know if he had to go through the same process Huma did to be paid for 2 or 3 full time jobs.

Huma's setup reeks too.  But Huma kind of got official approval for her setup, although I doubt they really understood the extent. Mr. IT-guy did not disclose his outside work.  Even so, Mr. iT is paid by the hour and should not be performing personal services during business hours.  His testimony on this could prove very interesting.  Although Hillary is a master at finding loopholes in the law to steal from taxpayers. 

 

[The Commish]

So- regardless of the fact that Hillary should clinch the nomination in New Jersey prior to the voting being over in California, it would NOT be a good look for her to lose California. The two latest polls are very mixed: one shows her ahead by 2 points, the other by double digits. 

So she's going there early to campaign. And she got Jerry Brown's endorsement (a big deal; Jerry has really salvaged his image in recent years.) Hopefully that will be enough. The problem is it's an open primary and I suspect lots of Trump supporters might vote for Bernie looking to weaken Hillary. So we'll see. 

this does not mean what you think it means

 

[timschochet]

this does not mean what you think it means

Oh yes it does. 

 

[The Commish]

this does not mean what you think it means

Oh yes it does. 

yeah....I walked right into that one

Being the Timtionary guy, i should know better.

 

[jon_mx]

“We agree in retrospect”

 what a great way to spin 'I was full of crap."

 

[jon_mx]

Really looking forward to arguing over the definition of 'is' is for the next eight years.  Almost could vote for Trump just to avoid the enormous amount of stupid legalize Hillary will make us suffer through. 

 

[Guest]

Can't make this stuff up.  Cheryl Mills transcript:




[SIZE=11pt]Q Sure. As you know, you've been sworn in. You understand that the deposition is taken under oath. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Is -- are there any reasons why you would not be able to answer truthfully here today? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A Not that I know of. [/SIZE]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills-deposition-01363.pdf

 

[Quint]

Can't make this stuff up.  Cheryl Mills transcript:




[SIZE=11pt]Q Sure. As you know, you've been sworn in. You understand that the deposition is taken under oath. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Is -- are there any reasons why you would not be able to answer truthfully here today? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A Not that I know of. [/SIZE]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills-deposition-01363.pdf

through 17 pages and i can already see where this is going.

"Gosh, I'm just so old, I don't think I'll be able to remember any details."

 

[Guest]

through 17 pages and i can already see where this is going.

"Gosh, I'm just so old, I don't think I'll be able to remember any details."

Yes, skimmed.  It's all "I don't remember," and "I don't recall."  Disgusting.  Exactly how organized criminals behave.

 

[dparker713]

I agree that her deceptions are worse than Trump's, but I don't think her Presidency would be worse than Trump's.

You think knowingly lying for a purpose is more of a negative for a candidate than being unable to tell the truth and/or having no idea when you're lying?  Cause while the first is certainly more morally untoward, I find the second much more damaging for a candidacy.   

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I missed the last 25 pages of this thread.  I assume there is nothing of any importance missed?   I assume that the indictments in May is now early June?  That Sanders has a clear path to the nomination? etc.

 

[dparker713]

On this we agree.  However, I am not sure that the best thing for the country is to elect Hillary, even considering this.  Because a Clinton loss would shift the party towards more ethical future candidates.  We could weather the Trump storm.

So, when the party looks across the aisle and sees a man that has told more lies than any candidate in history, with a shady past, and not so veiled bigotry - you think the conclusion they'll come to is that they need to be more ethical?  That seems odd.

 

[Henry Ford]

I missed the last 25 pages of this thread.  I assume there is nothing of any importance missed?   I assume that the indictments in May is now early June?  That Sanders has a clear path to the nomination? etc.

If you caught the IG report, read it, and understand the potential but not by any means certain implications, there's nothing else of note that has happened in here recently.

 

[dparker713]

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.

As long as it would take to go through all the evidence.  Actually, the long time frame of the investigation either means they've yet to find anything too significant, or they're just making sure they go through everything.  I've no idea why you draw a negative inference from the length of the investigation.  Its not like they were going to start up an investigation on Hillary and then not be through - the FBI is a political jungle just like every other major organization in the federal government.

 

[Henry Ford]

As long as it would take to go through all the evidence.  Actually, the long time frame of the investigation either means they've yet to find anything too significant, or they're just making sure they go through everything.  I've no idea why you draw a negative inference from the length of the investigation.  Its not like they were going to start up an investigation on Hillary and then not be through - the FBI is a political jungle just like every other major organization in the federal government.

Yeah, I don't think you can read anything into the time frame other than "at a minimum, they have to go through 60,000 emails before doing anything else."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't make this stuff up.  Cheryl Mills transcript:




[SIZE=11pt]Q Sure. As you know, you've been sworn in. You understand that the deposition is taken under oath. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Is -- are there any reasons why you would not be able to answer truthfully here today? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A Not that I know of. [/SIZE]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills-deposition-01363.pdf

CDM & HDR22 are made for each other. Peas in a pod those two.

 

[timschochet]

yeah....I walked right into that one

Being the Timtionary guy, i should know better.

No, YOU are the one making stuff up: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/31/jerry-browns-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton-is-based-on-a-simple-calculation-by-any-metric-shes-going-to-win/

One week from tonight, probably even before California's polls close, Hillary Clinton will have clinched the Democratic nomination. As it stands, per Associated Press estimates, Clinton has 1,769 pledged delegates — delegates allocated through voting results — and 541 superdelegates for a total of 2,310. That's 73 delegates short of what she needs to clinch. Sanders's totals are 1,499 pledged delegates and 43 superdelegates, for a total of 1,542.

Brown notes that Clinton only needs to win 10 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch — which is slightly high. If she wins 58 percent of the vote in New Jersey, where she leads, she clinches.

"Clinch" means exactly what I wrote before. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can't make this stuff up.  Cheryl Mills transcript:




[SIZE=11pt]Q Sure. As you know, you've been sworn in. You understand that the deposition is taken under oath. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Is -- are there any reasons why you would not be able to answer truthfully here today? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A Not that I know of. [/SIZE]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/JW-v-State-Mills-deposition-01363.pdf

- 13 attorneys on hand. Basically Battle of Jutland here.

 

[timschochet]

I so hate Judicial Watch. They have basically destroyed the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

through 17 pages and i can already see where this is going.

"Gosh, I'm just so old, I don't think I'll be able to remember any details."

First question of substance.

Q Okay. And can you briefly go tell me your duties, responsibilities, day-to-day work?
MS. WILKINSON: Objection. ...

 

 

[Henry Ford]

No, YOU are the one making stuff up: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/31/jerry-browns-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton-is-based-on-a-simple-calculation-by-any-metric-shes-going-to-win/

One week from tonight, probably even before California's polls close, Hillary Clinton will have clinched the Democratic nomination. As it stands, per Associated Press estimates, Clinton has 1,769 pledged delegates — delegates allocated through voting results — and 541 superdelegates for a total of 2,310. That's 73 delegates short of what she needs to clinch. Sanders's totals are 1,499 pledged delegates and 43 superdelegates, for a total of 1,542.

Brown notes that Clinton only needs to win 10 percent of the remaining pledged delegates to clinch — which is slightly high. If she wins 58 percent of the vote in New Jersey, where she leads, she clinches.

"Clinch" means exactly what I wrote before. 

Well, not really.  She "clinches" if you include unbound superdelegates.  If she got caught drinking the blood of infants on video the next day and they switched to Sanders, she wouldn't be the nominee.  So it isn't really clinching.

To be fair, as a Lakers fan, I wouldn't expect you to remember what clinching actually is at this point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Q Okay. Let's just -- let me just ask it this way: Shortly before coming to the State Department, Judge Lamberth ruled in the Alexander case, in which he criticized your conduct, as well as some others, in the White House with respect to handling of e-mail requests. And I believe the word he used was "loathsome."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]A "Loathsome"?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I so hate Judicial Watch. They have basically destroyed the Freedom of Information Act. 

This whole thing was started by a FOIA request by a liberal group called CREW. Now owned by David Brock.

 

[dparker713]

This is such bull####.  Her accent hasn't even been consistent. She's stood exactly in the place that would be the most politically expedient. Do you honestly believe there was ever a time in her life where she truly felt gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? The only time this woman ever has an ounce of political courage is when polls say it's ok to do so.  You've been blindly spouting crap in this thread for years and even in the face of her breaking federal law you still continue to spout this garbage.  Knock it off already.  It's like you have Tourette's or something. 

Considering she was born in 1947, yes.  Yes I do.

 

[Henry Ford]

This whole thing was started by a FOIA request by a liberal group called CREW. Now owned by David Brock.

He's just been undercover for the Republicans all these years.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you caught the IG report, read it, and understand the potential but not by any means certain implications, there's nothing else of note that has happened in here recently.

I did read it and posted here my thoughts.  There was really nothing new as far as my opinions.  Going from memory there were basically two sections:

1. The first half basically explained that the practice of forwarding emails to others at .gov was insufficient to comply with the record retention  law and policies.  However the NARA asserted that the violation was "mitigated" by handing over the hard copies of emails when requested late 2014/early 2015.  Though there was that missing period early in her term.  
   
2. The second half speaks to whether the setting up of the private email arrangement was "authorized".  It explains the changes in the policies over time.  (So did the first section,) Argues that there is no evidence that Hillary obtained permission for the arrangement other than some hearsay comments of those told she was given permission.  And there was some  comments from those currently in relevant departments that stated there was no record of such a request and that they would not approve such a request.
   

For the first issue I have posted exactly that conclusion a week or two prior to the report and have more or less stated that since January when the email policies were posted,  (The fact that each employee was responsible to manually archive relevant emails to local (per the report now corrupt or protected long forgotten passwords) ,pst  files.  For the second I have always believed that Hillary either took a "its better to ask for forgiveness than permission" approach and/or she knew who to ask that would say "yes" like the guy that stated his department's role was to support the secretary.

The other more interesting to me aspect of the report were the systems being put in place to make responding to email FOIA request much less onerousness and costly.  And in the context of State Department systems were so slow and cumbersome that almost no one used them what Hillary did to improve the infrastructure.  It appears that the major changes happened after Hillary left her position, including creating a working group to study the issue and make recommendations which seemed to be started the month or so after she left.   

Seem about right?  

 

[timschochet]

Well, not really.  She "clinches" if you include unbound superdelegates.  If she got caught drinking the blood of infants on video the next day and they switched to Sanders, she wouldn't be the nominee.  So it isn't really clinching.

To be fair, as a Lakers fan, I wouldn't expect you to remember what clinching actually is at this point.

1. The super delegates aren't changing their minds. So yeah, it's clinching. That's why the Washington Post and every other media outlet uses that language. 

2. LOL. Laker fans have forgotten more championships than most other sports fans can remember. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Q If you can tell me your duties and responsibilities as chief of staff, let's start with[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]that.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]A So I was chief of staff and counselor.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]- Wow, so Mills is claiming she was legal counsel to Hillary while at State.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Really amazing bull####tery there. Have to hand it to them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]- eta - Real easy to see where this is going from here, claims of Alzheimers combined by attorney-client privilege. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]More "cooperation" Hillary & Co. style.[/SIZE]

 

[timschochet]

This whole thing was started by a FOIA request by a liberal group called CREW. Now owned by David Brock.

Who cares? JW are the ones who use these requests to go on a witch hunt with the soul purpose of embarrassing Democrats. The FOIA was meant as a means for private citizens to learn what their government was up to. It wasn't designed to allow partisan groups to attack politicians they don't like. This is a perversion of the law. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I so hate Judicial Watch. They have basically destroyed the Freedom of Information Act. 

No, that would be Hillary.

 

[dparker713]

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.

Well, if State is like most of the government, their IT staff would be fairly inept.