Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

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. 

You don't care because it does not fit the round hole you want it to fit it in, JW did not start this and they are not remotely the only party at issue in these suits. - It's the right of every citizen and journalist to use these laws and there are judges and the State Department in between.

I can tell you that just these sorts of exercises have led to criminal convictions here in NO, it's one of the best tools for anyone who cares about good government.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

Sure, they never got the chance to be competent or incompetent in the first place.

 

[Henry Ford]

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 law.  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.  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?  

If the ultimate conclusion you drew was that Hillary Clinton violated her duties and the law by failing to preserve communications, failing to place those communications into archives of the Department of State and/or Federal government generally, and by creating an unauthorized private email server system outside the review and retention policies and enforcement of the Federal Government, then yes.  I also agree with your mitigating language.  And failure to adhere to retention policies and laws is hardly the level of offense that should lead to impeachment or a war crimes tribunal or anything, though it is important.

Of course, all of that is separate and apart from the content of the emails themselves and any investigations related thereto.  More disconcerting is that it appears now that virtually every position taken by Clinton with respect to her emails that could be addressed by the report has been debunked.  That seems problematic.

 

[Henry Ford]

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. 

Totally.  Heck, they've lost more championships than most sports teams can remember.  

 

[dparker713]

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.

Well, one of Johnson's primary policy goals is to immediately balance the federal budget without raising taxes.  So, an immediate massive recession or depression - sounds great!

 

[dparker713]

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.  

She's been a tarnished candidate since 1992.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Q Did you ever -- or did you speak with Heather Samuelson regarding the CREW request?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]A I don't have a memory of that.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Q Have you discussed this FOIA request with Ms. Samuelson since you left the State Department, or since this has been in the media reports?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]13[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]A Yes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]14[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Q Okay. And what were those discussions?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]15[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the scope and, also, it depends on the context. Because Ms. Samuelson also serves as one of the Secretary's lawyers.[/SIZE]

- This is really ballzy stuff. You see STATE department EMPLOYEES were really Hillary's LAWYERS who could not speak to their work as PUBLIC SERVANTS because PRIVILEGE.

You have a lot to be proud of here, Hillaryites.

 

[timschochet]

- This is really ballzy stuff. You see STATE department EMPLOYEES were really Hillary's LAWYERS who could not speak to their work as PUBLIC SERVANTS because PRIVILEGE.

You have a lot to be proud of here, Hillaryites.

Not seeing the problem here. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

[SIZE=12.5pt]Q Did the State IG contact you to speak to you in preparation of their report?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]6[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]MS. WILKINSON: Objection. Beyond the scope, and I'm going to instruct her not to answer.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]8[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]MS. BERMAN: Objection. Beyond the scope as well. And specifically an excluded category.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]10[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]MS. COTCA: It's a completed investigation. It's not a pending investigation.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]12[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt]THE WITNESS: Can we take a break?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12.5pt][/SIZE]

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not seeing the problem here. 

Public servants shown as "staff" doing a public duty with regard to public records pursuant to a law devoted to making public officials acts public are in fact acting publicly and don't have a right to privilege.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is Enron stuff, for better clarification.

 

[Guest]

- This is really ballzy stuff. You see STATE department EMPLOYEES were really Hillary's LAWYERS who could not speak to their work as PUBLIC SERVANTS because PRIVILEGE.

You have a lot to be proud of here, Hillaryites.

This is an absolute outrage.  These are horrible people.

 

[dparker713]

I mean, look no further than this thread for evidence of how ####ed we are.  There are a few obvious posters here--probably equally distributed in the general population--who are so rigid and incapable of incorporating new data to their political calculator that they resolve their cognitive dissonance by saying, "meh...criminal indictment, whatevs...Hillary's my candidate, I'm sticking to it."  

It's mind-blowing, not that folks would support Hillary for what they think she represents, but that they would support Hillary when it is learned that she systematically was engaged in criminal activity.  We do not have to be stuck with Hillary v. Trump.  I agree with Jon Stewart when he says I'd prefer "Mr. T. over Trump."  In fact, I'd prefer Hillary behind bars to be president over Trump.  But, I'm realistic that not many others feel that way.  And, putting up a crippled candidate to face Trump is probably not in the best interests of the party or the country.

There are other options.  And, frankly, after the OIG report, it is irresponsible--for the DNC, the voters at large, and posters here--to not consider an alternative to Hillary for the general.  If we collectively decide that we want to wait for the FBI report, that's fine, but that comes with a lot of risk...again, with Trump looming and very little time to establish a new candidate.  Alternatively, pressure should start now to nudge Hillary aside and start warming up Kerry/Biden/Warren in the bullpen.

You're entirely ignoring the risk of pushing Hillary aside and alienating the millions that have already voted for her.  The time to shove her aside would have been before the primaries - its too late now absent something significantly more substantive than the OIG report.

 

[Guest]

Not seeing the problem here. 

It's a distilled version of why the Clintons are a scourge.  There's overt obstruction, lying through "I don't recall", lawyering of every syllable to shield the truth, privilege to claim she's an attorney when her role was aide.  More lying under oath.  And because no handcuffs are donned, people like you say you don't see a problem.  

Well, it is a problem.  It's a big problem.

 

[timschochet]

Public servants shown as "staff" doing a public duty with regard to public records pursuant to a law devoted to making public officials acts public are in fact acting publicly and don't have a right to privilege.

We're talking about a nuisance lawsuit here, the sole purpose of which is to embarrass Hillary Clinton. I applaud any attempt to obfuscate it. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is an absolute outrage.  These are horrible people.

Reading this depo is a sh+ show.

270 pages. Claims she doesn't know who the head of IRM Bentel was.

- I am going to go drink some beer.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If the ultimate conclusion you drew was that Hillary Clinton violated her duties and the law by failing to preserve communications, failing to place those communications into archives of the Department of State and/or Federal government generally, and by creating an unauthorized private email server system outside the review and retention policies and enforcement of the Federal Government, then yes.  I also agree with your mitigating language.  And failure to adhere to retention policies and laws is hardly the level of offense that should lead to impeachment or a war crimes tribunal or anything, though it is important.

Of course, all of that is separate and apart from the content of the emails themselves and any investigations related thereto.  More disconcerting is that it appears now that virtually every position taken by Clinton with respect to her emails that could be addressed by the report has been debunked.  That seems problematic.

"Mitigated" comes from the report (page 26 pf the page navigation), not me, but sure to the above.

"NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete. "

That being said my question that remains unanswered is whether the belief, while clearly a wrong belief that forwarding to a .gov was sufficient to satisfy record retention polices was prevalent enough at State, or in government in general that a reasonable person could be persuaded that this practice was a good faith (in laymen's terms) effort to comply with the law?

Oh and I assume that Hillary would benefit the most if the emails were released in their entirety such that the benign and innocuous descriptions of the content (again not my words) are demonstrated.   Assuming of course that the worst of the wrost are really the discussions by others of two news articles, a scheduling of a photo, and "intelligence" provided by a private citizen.

 

[timschochet]

This is an absolute outrage.  These are horrible people.

They certainly are. #### them and their stupid lawsuit. 

 

[Guest]

Is this a Presidential candidate or John Gotti?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We're talking about a nuisance lawsuit here, the sole purpose of which is to embarrass Hillary Clinton. I applaud any attempt to obfuscate it. 

Judges dismiss nuisance lawsuits. Hillary has 50 of these and as just taking a glance at this I'd say Hillary has a decent shot of being deposed herself.

That, will be satisfying. Hopefully it happens.

That and the FBI interview will be the takeaways for me from this if nothing else happens.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is this a Presidential candidate or John Gotti?

Omerta is possibly in effect here. Or at least they act like it.

 

[Guest]

They certainly are. #### them and their stupid lawsuit. 

You have to live in a twisted reality to think of Clinton and Mills as the heroes here, and not the villains.  

 

[Quint]

- This is really ballzy stuff. You see STATE department EMPLOYEES were really Hillary's LAWYERS who could not speak to their work as PUBLIC SERVANTS because PRIVILEGE.

You have a lot to be proud of here, Hillaryites.

i'm only about 44 (pdf) pages in, but it seems like CM is claiming privilege as HRC's attorney after she left office in Feb. 2013. have i not got to the good stuff yet?

and i can see why the FBI offered Pagliano immunity: Wilkinson & Co. will not let their client(s) answer any questions about him or his role w/ regard to the server.

 

[timschochet]

Judges dismiss nuisance lawsuits. Hillary has 50 of these and as I just take a glance at this I'd say Hillary has a decent shot of being deposed herself.

That, will be satisfying. Hopefully it happens.

That and the FBI interview will be the takeaways for me from this if nothing else happens.

I hope the judge refuses to allow it. And yeah I would throw this lawsuit out myself.  But if that won't happen, then I think it's great that Hillary's people find every excuse they can to refuse to answer questions. Good for them. 

 

[timschochet]

i'm only about 44 (pdf) pages in, but it seems like CM is claiming privilege as HRC's attorney after she left office in Feb. 2013. have i not got to the good stuff yet?

and i can see why the FBI offered Pagliano immunity: Wilkinson & Co. will not let their client(s) answer any questions about him or his role w/ regard to the server.

The JW lawsuit is not the FBI investigation. It has nothing to do with the FBI investigation which is NOT a criminal investigation. 

Hillary and her team should of course cooperate fully with the FBI (and I'm sure they are) and they should make every legal attempt they can NOT to cooperate with JW. 

 

[Henry Ford]

"Mitigated" comes from the report (page 26 pf the page navigation), not me, but sure to the above.

"NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure. OIG concurs with NARA but also notes that Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete. "

That being said my question that remains unanswered is whether the belief, while clearly a wrong belief that forwarding to a .gov was sufficient to satisfy record retention polices was prevalent enough at State, or in government in general that a reasonable person could be persuaded that this practice was a good faith (in laymen's terms) effort to comply with the law?

Oh and I assume that Hillary would benefit the most if the emails were released in their entirety such that the benign and innocuous descriptions of the content (again not my words) are demonstrated.   Assuming of course that the worst of the wrost are really the discussions by others of two news articles, a scheduling of a photo, and "intelligence" provided by a private citizen.

If she believed that forwarded  emails, and remember she didn't forward all of them, were sufficient to satisfy record-keeping requirements, then she isn't much of a lawyer.

 

[timschochet]

You have to live in a twisted reality to think of Clinton and Mills as the heroes here, and not the villains.  

Hillary is certainly a heroine of mine. I know less about Cheryl Mills, but given her fights on the Clinton's behalf, she sounds like a fine person. 

 

[dparker713]

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.

An immense amount of the IT infrastructure for the federal government is terrible.  But each department has budgets and they mostly prioritize other expenditures.  The IT infrastructure is a systemic issue, and a report to that effect was released the same day as the OIG report - yet everyone ignored it.  

 

[timschochet]

An immense amount of the IT infrastructure for the federal government is terrible.  But each department has budgets and they mostly prioritize other expenditures.  The IT infrastructure is a systemic issue, and a report to that effect was released the same day as the OIG report - yet everyone ignored it.  

Because it doesn't fit in with the narrative of a corrupt Hillary Clinton. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

An immense amount of the IT infrastructure for the federal government is terrible.  But each department has budgets and they mostly prioritize other expenditures.  The IT infrastructure is a systemic issue, and a report to that effect was released the same day as the OIG report - yet everyone ignored it.  

And, who ultimately is responsible for that????

 

[Quint]

The JW lawsuit is not the FBI investigation. It has nothing to do with the FBI investigation which is NOT a criminal investigation. 

Hillary and her team should of course cooperate fully with the FBI (and I'm sure they are) and they should make every legal attempt they can NOT to cooperate with JW. 

sure. i get that. JW <> FBI.

just reading through the deposition transcript, as i'm sure you have, Wilkinson makes a point to object in a vast majority of Pagliano mentions by Cotca and advises CM not to answer the question. i'd guess the FBI anticipated this as a possibility within their own investigation and bought testimony with immunity. 

 

[Guest]

They certainly are. #### them and their stupid lawsuit. 

They earned the scrutiny.  A Federal judge ordered the depositions because Hillary and Co acted in "bad faith".  Your selective respect laws is remarkable.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If she believed that forwarded  emails, and remember she didn't forward all of them, where's sufficient to satisfy record-keeping requirements, then she isn't much of a lawyer.

I  many of you FFA lawyers, but this seems to be a reason to bump my opinion of Hillary higher rather than lower.  

 

[dparker713]

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.

Truth?  What truth?  We've got some information but hardly the whole picture.  Investigating things takes time and care.  Proving things is difficult.  And of course emotion and bias will happen in the FBI - it's an organization of people.  

 

[The Commish]

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. 

  These don't count until convention.  It's why she can't "clinch" until then

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

An immense amount of the IT infrastructure for the federal government is terrible.  But each department has budgets and they mostly prioritize other expenditures.  The IT infrastructure is a systemic issue, and a report to that effect was released the same day as the OIG report - yet everyone ignored it.  

And, who ultimately is responsible for that????

Tax payers!

 

[dparker713]

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.

I haven't looked into this for the Democrats, but not all of the Republican pledged delegates are actually bound.  I'd imagine its the same for the Dems.  

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I haven't looked into this for the Democrats, but not all of the Republican pledged delegates are actually bound.  I'd imagine its the same for the Dems.  

Aren't they all bound at least on the first vote?

 

[The Commish]

I haven't looked into this for the Democrats, but not all of the Republican pledged delegates are actually bound.  I'd imagine its the same for the Dems.  

There's no such thing as a "bound delegate" in the DNC.  They have super delegates who are "loosely attached" to polling results of their primaries and caucuses.

ETA:  Sorry...the second part is wrong....I shouldn't have specified super delegates...should read delegates in general.  The super delegates can vote for whoever they want.  Should also be noted the DNC hand picks many of their delegates while the GOP does not.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There's no such thing as a "bound delegate" in the DNC.  They have super delegates who are "loosely attached" to polling results of their primaries and caucuses.

What?

 

[The Commish]

What?

read my edit

 

[dparker713]

It's a distilled version of why the Clintons are a scourge.  There's overt obstruction, lying through "I don't recall", lawyering of every syllable to shield the truth, privilege to claim she's an attorney when her role was aide.  More lying under oath.  And because no handcuffs are donned, people like you say you don't see a problem.  

Well, it is a problem.  It's a big problem.

Well, its essentially what every corporation tries to do with their inhouse counsel.  It's not exactly something unusual.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There's no such thing as a "bound delegate" in the DNC.  They have super delegates who are "loosely attached" to polling results of their primaries and caucuses.

ETA:  Sorry...the second part is wrong....I shouldn't have specified super delegates...should read delegates in general.  The super delegates can vote for whoever they want.  Should also be noted the DNC hand picks their delegates while the GOP does not.

What?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I hope the judge refuses to allow it. And yeah I would throw this lawsuit out myself.  But if that won't happen, then I think it's great that Hillary's people find every excuse they can to refuse to answer questions. Good for them. 

It's called bad faith, and they're proving it. It's a public service really.

 

[dparker713]

And, who ultimately is responsible for that????

The people we elect and confirm to make such decisions for us.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm only about 44 (pdf) pages in, but it seems like CM is claiming privilege as HRC's attorney after she left office in Feb. 2013. have i not got to the good stuff yet?

and i can see why the FBI offered Pagliano immunity: Wilkinson & Co. will not let their client(s) answer any questions about him or his role w/ regard to the server.

I got up to maybe page 25 or so and maybe hopped around after that so not sure.... but considering JW's thrusts right now are about proving bad faith and gaining access to Hillary's deleted emails if recovered, and maybe deposing Hillary herself, I'd say they are well on their way.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The people we elect and confirm to make such decisions for us.

Well, we don't get to elect, nor confirm the SOS, now do we?

Ultimately she had responsibility to clean up the IT stuff, if it was a mess.  She passed the buck, because it was not a very politically rewarding move.  Racking up frequent flyer miles looks a lot better than actually getting something useful done.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Not seeing the problem here. 

not surprising

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well, its essentially what every corporation tries to do with their inhouse counsel.  It's not exactly something unusual.

Not really. If a company has an employee with a JD and they put him/her in a non legal capacity they don't get to claim privilege. There isn't an org chart at State which shows Mills or Samuelson as State Dept counsel, is there? 

 

[Henry Ford]

I  many of you FFA lawyers, but this seems to be a reason to bump my opinion of Hillary higher rather than lower.  

Really? Because I think someone intelligent and capable being bad at something she's licensed in would be a negative.

I don't believe she's a bad lawyer.