Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)

[Sand]

Some really ugly figures for Clinton

Sorry - not seeing it.  When Sanders finally drops she'll pick up at least a few percent.  There's a reason she's still a heavy favorite in real money betting pools.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That's really not a reasonable conclusion from the fact we agree upon and it's actually not a true conclusion.

The fact that there was no acceptable means available to the State Department to receive and then archive the emails that Hillary returned other than paper leads directly to the conclusion that there was no point, other than maybe sentimental or possibly future CYA or just laziness to maintain the emails active on the server.  Because you can think of additional reasons why Crooked Hillary might be eager to get rid of the email evidence is not something that is bolstered by the fact that Hillary's emails were returned to State in the appropriate form under the regulations.  

 

[Willie Neslon]

Sorry - not seeing it.  When Sanders finally drops she'll pick up at least a few percent.  There's a reason she's still a heavy favorite in real money betting pools.

She's not a heavy favorite. Like -160 as of early this week.  Small favorite. In NFL spread terms she's laying 3.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The idea that State couldn't take a pst on a thumb drive is laughable by the way.

If Hillary turned over the emails as a .pst file then the task of printing the emails would have fallen on the State Department.  Either way the records would have been archived on paper.   No additional information would have been archived.  Thankfully that changes (the paper part at least), if all goes as planned in December.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If Hillary turned over the emails as a .pst file then the task of printing the emails would have fallen on the State Department.  Either way the records would have been archived on paper.   No additional information would have been archived.  Thankfully that changes (the paper part at least), if all goes as planned in December.  

The emails were loaded to the State website in pdf format. and they were obviously redacted electronically. State started retaining information electronically in 2012 two year before Hillary's culling and again obviously this stuff is available all over the web and between departments in electronic form, so Hillary took it from electronic, made it paper, which State then had to make electronic. Which took 9 months. And btw the news reports were that Hillary's team ended up with an electronic set of the post-scanned paper themselves after all - so not even the anti-hording silliness is sensible. Even so the original electronic documentation was deleted.

 

[timschochet]

What will Tim do if hildabeast flames out in Cali?

I'll be celebrating because she will have clinched the nomination a few hours before. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The fact that there was no acceptable means available to the State Department to receive and then archive the emails that Hillary returned other than paper leads directly to the conclusion that there was no point, other than maybe sentimental or possibly future CYA or just laziness to maintain the emails active on the server.  Because you can think of additional reasons why Crooked Hillary might be eager to get rid of the email evidence is not something that is bolstered by the fact that Hillary's emails were returned to State in the appropriate form under the regulations.  

You think that there is no acceptable means available to the State Department to receive and then archive the emails that Hillary returned other than paper, is that right? I mean there is a website to electronic storage of her emails right now. Ok I will let that go, I cited the reg further up, but that's really not a hangup for me.

I was asking for your conclusion, you have still yet to give one besides, er, Hillary did not want to use the data storage on her emails. The woman does not even know how to use a computer. But if that's your answer, fine like I said I won't criticize your conclusions.

 

[shadrap]

When did Hillary say "I don't recall?" 

I'm a little late to the party tonight,  but didn't ol Hill say ----it--- in some deposition regarding some past miscuss like 50 times?   Might have also included,  "I don"t recall"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The emails were loaded to the State website in pdf format. and they were obviously redacted electronically. State started retaining information electronically in 2012 two year before Hillary's culling and again obviously this stuff is available all over the web and between departments in electronic form, so Hillary took it from electronic, made it paper, which State then had to make electronic. Which took 9 months. And btw the news reports were that Hillary's team ended up with an electronic set of the post-scanned paper themselves after all - so not even the anti-hording silliness is sensible. Even so the original electronic documentation was deleted.

The government (as in the FBI) had Hillary's thumb drives of PDFs since when?  The regulations as have been quoted and linked required printed (i.e. paper).  And for all of the posting on this subject and demands of others to consider the facts you should have known this for at least six months by now.  Sorry, no matter how stupid the exercise was, that was not because of Hillary's doing (other than maybe not investing in an approved system during her tenure).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The government (as in the FBI) had Hillary's thumb drives of PDFs since when?  The regulations as have been quoted and linked required printed (i.e. paper).  And for all of the posting on this subject and demands of others to consider the facts you should have known this for at least six months by now.  Sorry, no matter how stupid the exercise was, that was not because of Hillary's doing (other than maybe not investing in an approved system during her tenure).

When the FBI seized the server they seized all electronic copies of the scanned paper - from Kendall especially. One fact emerged was that he was walking around with it at one point. At another it became apparent he would need a SCIF in his office because they were practically radioactive.

I don't mind discussing other facts, it's just different than the one I posed to Tim, that all original electronic copies of all work and personal emails were destroyed and my question was (even assuming it was permitted or even required for it to be printed) what did he conclude from that? I guess you're sticking with the conclusion that Hillary, who cannot even operate a computer, personally hates to waste data storage space.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'll be celebrating because she will have clinched the nomination a few hours before. 

I don't think "clinched" means what you think it means...

 

[tommyGunZ]

Can Bernie reconsider a 3rd party run?  He'd get about half the democrats and a ton of independents, not to mention everyone who is going to stay home because they can't stand both DT and HRC. Hive Mind saying 81% chance of Bernie victory if it was 3 horse race. Put Warren on the ticket.  It's not like he won't be able to raise money for a run. I don't believe a Bernie 3rd party run would guarantee a Trump win.  I do believe Bernie not running 3rd party guarantees a Trump win.

Nothing personal, but the idea that Bernie running 3rd party is the best way to stop Trump is just flat out insane.  

 

[tommyGunZ]

However again why destroy all electronic versions of official and personal then?

Great point. She should have kept extra copies around so that Trey Goudy and Darryl Issa could subpoena them and use them for political reasons.  What was she thinking?!?!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Great point. She should have kept extra copies around so that Trey Goudy and Darryl Issa could subpoena them and use them for political reasons.  What was she thinking?!?!

Fine - Tommy's conclusion is Hillary purposefully destroyed the original electronic data to keep others from seeing it. I might even agree with that one.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You think that there is no acceptable means available to the State Department to receive and then archive the emails that Hillary returned other than paper, is that right? I mean there is a website to electronic storage of her emails right now. Ok I will let that go, I cited the reg further up, but that's really not a hangup for me.

One last time

"compliance with this regulation and preservation of emails that constitute Federal records can be accomplished in one of three ways:

1. print and file;
   
2. incorporation into the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART);
   
3. or the use of the NARA-approved Capstone program for capturing the emails of designated senior officials. "
   

An NARA approved Capstone program has only existed for a few State Department employees since Feb 2015.  It was thus not an option.

The State Department, presumably due to a decision made by Hillary does not use SMART for emails due to concerns about access. Thus not an option.

Leaving as the OIG states " As a result, printing and filing remained the only method by which emails could properly be preserved within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance." 

While this section is largely concerned with option when using government systems, this obviously doesn't change in the following sections concerning private accounts.

Granted by the end of this year new regulations require a more sane paperless archival method and those regulations thus allow the "off the shelf" solution that State plans to deploy to meet those requirements.   When that system is deployed a pst file can be loaded for archival purposes,  But that system did not yet exist at the time of the OIG report from last week so asserting that it was a viable option a year and half ago is going to be tough sell,

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When the FBI seized the server they seized all electronic copies of the scanned paper - from Kendall especially. One fact emerged was that he was walking around with it at one point. At another it became apparent he would need a SCIF in his office because they were practically radioactive.

I don't mind discussing other facts, it's just different than the one I posed to Tim, that all original electronic copies of all work and personal emails were destroyed and my question was (even assuming it was permitted or even required for it to be printed) what did he conclude from that? I guess you're sticking with the conclusion that Hillary, who cannot even operate a computer, personally hates to waste data storage space.

First my conclusion is that there was no purpose to be served for Hillary to maintain a server that she no longer used once she handed over the requested emails.  And the existence of the thumb drives containing PDF copies of the emails which you acknowledge means that the conclusion that Hillary destroyed all electronically copies is demonstrably false by your own post! 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Exactly BFS.  The real scandal here, as is often the case, is how outdated our gov't computer systems are.  

 

[Willie Neslon]

Nothing personal, but the idea that Bernie running 3rd party is the best way to stop Trump is just flat out insane.  

Hive Mind says 81% likely he wins.  http://go.unu.ai/r/41821

In the unlikely event of a three person race between Trump, Clinton, and Sanders who would win?

[–]UNU_AMA[S] 1374 points 9 hours ago 








UNU says: "SANDERS" 81%

Comment: UNU was quite confident in this result, achieving 100% brainpower which indicates a decisive answer.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Exactly BFS.  The real scandal here, as is often the case, is how outdated our gov't computer systems are.  

And it would be a great question to ask Hillary how she prioritized the State Department;s IT infrastructure when she was given extra funding in that very first Obama controversy of the appropriations bill with unchallenged earmarks,   I assume she had other priorities for that funding.  I'd like to hear the response.   (Not that it makes that much difference.  I'm sure Trump would just have China upgrade our systems via some negotiation.) 

 

[shadrap]

Exactly BFS.  The real scandal here, as is often the case, is how outdated our gov't computer systems are.  

Therein lies the problem;  "gov't computer systems are".

 

[squistion]

Hive Mind says 81% likely he wins.  http://go.unu.ai/r/41821

Hive Mind.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Or forced on the equivalent of medicaid (which recoups its costs from your estate.)

As I head off to sleep I just want to point out that this would never happen if the bleeding hearts ever had our way.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And it would be a great question to ask Hillary how she prioritized the State Department;s IT infrastructure when she was given extra funding in that very first Obama controversy of the appropriations bill with unchallenged earmarks,   I assume she had other priorities for that funding.  I'd like to hear the response.   (Not that it makes that much difference.  I'm sure Trump would just have China upgrade our systems via some negotiation.) 

I don't think you and I have ever had any disagreement on this point. One failure does not preclude others though.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Obama said that the nominee will be clear next week. Have to imagine his endorsement is coming after the last primary votes. Hell get right to work using the bully pulpit on Trump.

I agree. I have a feeling he will spend more of his time going after Trump than he will singing the praises of Hillary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

One last time

"compliance with this regulation and preservation of emails that constitute Federal records can be accomplished in one of three ways:

1. print and file;
   
2. incorporation into the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART);
   
3. or the use of the NARA-approved Capstone program for capturing the emails of designated senior officials. "
   

***************************************************************

An NARA approved Capstone program has only existed for a few State Department employees since Feb 2015.  It was thus not an option.

The State Department, presumably due to a decision made by Hillary does not use SMART for emails due to concerns about access. Thus not an option.

Leaving as the OIG states " As a result, printing and filing remained the only method by which emails could properly be preserved within the Office of the Secretary in full compliance with existing FAM guidance." 

While this section is largely concerned with option when using government systems, this obviously doesn't change in the following sections concerning private accounts.

Granted by the end of this year new regulations require a more sane paperless archival method and those regulations thus allow the "off the shelf" solution that State plans to deploy to meet those requirements.   When that system is deployed a pst file can be loaded for archival purposes,  But that system did not yet exist at the time of the OIG report from last week so asserting that it was a viable option a year and half ago is going to be tough sell,

Ok as I understand it everything above the bar is a quote and everything below it is you.

I did address this point. You ignored it.

- The above is for within the Office.

- Cheryl Mills has testified that Hillary was not in compliance "within the office".

- Not to mention Hillary was never on the network to begin with, so this could not apply.

The issue of loading pst's into archives is an issue within the system to the extent it is not done "consistently" (OIG's word). If you take a pst and send it to State yes their IT and record keeping and archives department is capable of handling it, They are saying that their IT department does not have a program which consistently captures employee pst archives within the system. However obviously they do  and when they do they can process them.

In 2009, NARA amended its  regulations explicitly to address official emails on personal accounts:

Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.

- This is the actual situation at hand,

- It wasn't allowed we know that. So it was neither within the system nor allowed.

 - Hillary failed this explicit requirement though even if it were allowed as she used to argue.

In August 2012, OMB and NARA issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments, agencies, and independent agencies in part directing agencies to eliminate paper and use electronic recordkeeping.

- Yes State had until end of 2016 to do this but considering the law was 2 years old at that point the mandate was to obtain and process emails in electronic format, not paper format which would then take months more to process.
My point to Tim was that you, me and the whole world agrees that Hillary delivered material in paper format and then destroyed all (not some, all) of the original electronic data. You've drawn a conclusion on the paper format issue, and like I said though I disagree with you we do accept this basic fact together.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And BFS:

[SIZE=14pt]OIG identified one email exchange occurring shortly before Secretary Clinton joined the Department that demonstrated  [/SIZE]a reluctance to communicate the requirement to incoming staff. In the exchange, records officials within the Bureau of Administration wondered whether there was an electronic method that could be used to capture the Secretary’s emails because they were “not  comfortable” advising the new administration to print and file email records.

- Combine that with Mills' actual sworn testimony above that Hillary and staff were not complying with the print & file requirement.

They don't comply with the regs (laws), and then 5.5 years after entering office when compelled - and 2+ years after a law mandating turnover  to electronic recordkeeping - they decide to add months to their own work, expense and data storage, and State's. by printing the whole thing out to paper and then destroy the entirety of the original electronic data.

You want to conclude that they thought they were complying with regs like Hillary thought her system was authorized, fine. At least it is indeed a conclusion.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Exactly BFS.  The real scandal here, as is often the case, is how outdated our gov't computer systems are.  

You sure? Because I thought the real scandal here was Hillary using her personal server for government business, mixing private and official emails, mishandling classified information, and deleting 30,000 emails once investigated.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I agree. I have a feeling he will spend more of his time going after Trump than he will singing the praises of Hillary.

I think you'll be surprised. I listened to an interview with Jon Favreau recently and he spoke very highly of working with Hillary, basically saying she was #2 in cabinet meetings and Obama respected her immensely. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama is going to help Hillary on the trail but watching him today should remind everyone why he won in 08. Fluid, clever, funny, likeable, stinging without being clumsy. Hillary is like a jackhammer alongside that.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think you'll be surprised. I listened to an interview with Jon Favreau recently and he spoke very highly of working with Hillary, basically saying she was #2 in cabinet meetings and Obama respected her immensely. 

#2 

Obama try to be honest, she is a piece of crap.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Hillary is like a jackhammer alongside that.

No kidding. Looking back at some of her speeches in 08 it's amazing how far downhill she's gone. Setting aside all the scandals, corruption and distrust - she could lose this thing on nothing more than being pure torture to listen to.

 

[dparker713]

The emails were loaded to the State website in pdf format. and they were obviously redacted electronically. State started retaining information electronically in 2012 two year before Hillary's culling and again obviously this stuff is available all over the web and between departments in electronic form, so Hillary took it from electronic, made it paper, which State then had to make electronic. Which took 9 months. And btw the news reports were that Hillary's team ended up with an electronic set of the post-scanned paper themselves after all - so not even the anti-hording silliness is sensible. Even so the original electronic documentation was deleted.

I've seen law firms turn around that many paper documents in about a week.  How the hell would that take 9 months?

 

[dparker713]

Hive Mind says 81% likely he wins.  http://go.unu.ai/r/41821

But what does the magic 8 ball say?

 

[The Commish]

Ethics really wasn't part of the assertion however, I provided others as well.  How about Pope Francis?  That a better example for you?

I have no idea why you think a pope that has broken most of the rules supports your position as opposed to @dparker713 ''s:

 "Yes I think its odd you think great leaders know and understand the rules they're bound by.  As I think of great leaders as generally not following the rules but forging their own path.  This is why I asked you for examples." 

Everyone of your examples fits his definition.

That wasn't his original comment (or mine for that matter) that started this discussion.  Keep going back.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok as I understand it everything above the bar is a quote and everything below it is you.

I did address this point. You ignored it.

- The above is for within the Office.

- Cheryl Mills has testified that Hillary was not in compliance "within the office".

- Not to mention Hillary was never on the network to begin with, so this could not apply.

The issue of loading pst's into archives is an issue within the system to the extent it is not done "consistently" (OIG's word). If you take a pst and send it to State yes their IT and record keeping and archives department is capable of handling it, They are saying that their IT department does not have a program which consistently captures employee pst archives within the system. However obviously they do  and when they do they can process them.

- This is the actual situation at hand,

- It wasn't allowed we know that. So it was neither within the system nor allowed.

 - Hillary failed this explicit requirement though even if it were allowed as she used to argue.

- Yes State had until end of 2016 to do this but considering the law was 2 years old at that point the mandate was to obtain and process emails in electronic format, not paper format which would then take months more to process.
My point to Tim was that you, me and the whole world agrees that Hillary delivered material in paper format and then destroyed all (not some, all) of the original electronic data. You've drawn a conclusion on the paper format issue, and like I said though I disagree with you we do accept this basic fact together.

WRONG!

 

[MaxThreshold]

Exactly BFS.  The real scandal here, as is often the case, is how outdated our gov't computer systems are.  

Amazing the level of ignorance Hillary supporters have.  Your post right here is a text book case of completely misunderstanding (or unwillingness TO understand) the whole situation with Hillary.

Its so blatantly obvious that the truth would crush you if you were willing to look it in the face which, of course, is why you can't look it in the face.  But keep misrepresenting everything - you're only fooling yourself.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

No kidding. Looking back at some of her speeches in 08 it's amazing how far downhill she's gone. Setting aside all the scandals, corruption and distrust - she could lose this thing on nothing more than being pure torture to listen to.

This is "the post" of the political season..

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And BFS:

- Combine that with Mills' actual sworn testimony above that Hillary and staff were not complying with the print & file requirement.

They don't comply with the regs (laws), and then 5.5 years after entering office when compelled - and 2+ years after a law mandating turnover  to electronic recordkeeping - they decide to add months to their own work, expense and data storage, and State's. by printing the whole thing out to paper and then destroy the entirety of the original electronic data.

You want to conclude that they thought they were complying with regs like Hillary thought her system was authorized, fine. At least it is indeed a conclusion.

The only thing relevant to whether or not Tim should be shamed into not reading some sinister motive into the fact that Hillary went through the exercise of converting her e-mails into paper is whether or not they could have been archived in electronic form.  The nonsense that because they were on a server "outside the office" means some other method existed is  .  Whether or not "Print and File" was routinely being performed at State, and especially among Hillary and her top aids is relevant in many ways, but none of these ways have anything to do with options available to State when Hillary returned the requested emails.  And if Hillary was in full compliance with the record retention regulations through out their tenures while using her other wise private server the records would have been "print and file".  If Hillary used a .gov account, was in compliance with the record retention policy, and did not change her opinion on SMART the records would have been "print and file".   Under no circumstances would the "original electronic data" had been preserved.   And while I can only speculate on the "off the shelf" product being deployed, it very likely (as in almost certainly) retains only the basic (From/to/cc/bcc/subject/body/attachments/the status assigned by the interface/etc) from the original electronic data.   

LINK

"In August 2012, OMB and NARA issued a memorandum requiring agencies to eliminate paper record keeping and manage all email records in an electronic format by December 31, 2016"

LINK

"The Department also plans to purchase an off-the-shelf product to electronically manage its emails in keeping with OMB’s and NARA’s requirement that it do so by December 2016. This product will be adapted to Department requirements to include an interface that requires users to determine the record value and sensitivity of an email with one click and an auto-tagging feature that will allow emails to be stored according to disposition schedules. The new system will also be able to process legacy email files, such as the Personal Storage Table (.pst) files of departed officials. In addition, the Department expects that the product will improve the Department’s ability to perform more comprehensive email searches."

 

[Guest]

Great point. She should have kept extra copies around so that Trey Goudy and Darryl Issa could subpoena them and use them for political reasons.  What was she thinking?!?!

You make a good case for indictment.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First my conclusion is that there was no purpose to be served for Hillary to maintain a server that she no longer used once she handed over the requested emails.  And the existence of the thumb drives containing PDF copies of the emails which you acknowledge means that the conclusion that Hillary destroyed all electronically copies is demonstrably false by your own post! 

Pdf copies of the paper are not the original electronic emails. Two different things. One main difference besides the fact they are two entirely different things is that the original electronic files have metadata which show the history of the files - reflecting any changes in the text for instance, so, no, stick to the actual fact at hand.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What means the bold?  He puts them in a holding cell?  No...that seems like it'd be against the law.  If he wants to prevent certain people from his events, that's his prerogative I guess.  That's his right and the aftermath will be in the court of public opinion which won't end well.  So I wouldn't say I condone it.  I don't think we owe the media anything either.  We have so many outlets now, the information will always get out.

Correct.  Trump puts reporters in a pen.  It's discussed here. He puts them in a pen and then mocks them while his audience targets their anger at them.  Here's an accounting of it from someone on the beat.  And here's another first person account for good measure. Also described in those columns is how he blacklists reporters who he sees as giving unfavorable coverage.

If you don't have a huge problem with the way Trump treats the press, you should probably take a little time to read up on the historical importance of the free press and how the worst leaders in recent history have treated the press. Trump is the greatest enemy of the free press we've seen in this country in my life, by far. If you don't grasp the danger of that, or refuse to acknowledge it because CNN is stupid, you're part of the problem.

If you come around on this, lemme know and next we can talk about the threat he presents to separation of powers based on what he said about the judge in his Trump U case yesterday.  One part of the Constitution at a time.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The only thing relevant to whether or not Tim should be shamed into not reading some sinister motive into the fact that Hillary went through the exercise of converting her e-mails into paper is whether or not they could have been archived in electronic form.  The nonsense that because they were on a server "outside the office" means some other method existed is  .  Whether or not "Print and File" was routinely being performed at State, and especially among Hillary and her top aids is relevant in many ways, but none of these ways have anything to do with options available to State when Hillary returned the requested emails.  And if Hillary was in full compliance with the record retention regulations through out their tenures while using her other wise private server the records would have been "print and file".  If Hillary used a .gov account, was in compliance with the record retention policy, and did not change her opinion on SMART the records would have been "print and file".   Under no circumstances would the "original electronic data" had been preserved.   And while I can only speculate on the "off the shelf" product being deployed, it very likely (as in almost certainly) retains only the basic (From/to/cc/bcc/subject/body/attachments/the status assigned by the interface/etc) from the original electronic data.   

LINK

"In August 2012, OMB and NARA issued a memorandum requiring agencies to eliminate paper record keeping and manage all email records in an electronic format by December 31, 2016"

LINK

"The Department also plans to purchase an off-the-shelf product to electronically manage its emails in keeping with OMB’s and NARA’s requirement that it do so by December 2016. This product will be adapted to Department requirements to include an interface that requires users to determine the record value and sensitivity of an email with one click and an auto-tagging feature that will allow emails to be stored according to disposition schedules. The new system will also be able to process legacy email files, such as the Personal Storage Table (.pst) files of departed officials. In addition, the Department expects that the product will improve the Department’s ability to perform more comprehensive email searches."

BFS I said I would accept your conclusions as to why she printed everything, and why she destroyed the original electronic copies official and personal. We've agreed on the facts and you've laid out your conclusions. Good effort. I've just pointed out to Tim that he can do the same, he doesn't have to conclude anything nefarious anymore than you have. I think I will spare everyone further explication of the exciting world of public records law at this point.

 

[Guest]

Everyone can distort the facts to mold to politics, as long as the FBI doesn't.  Look at the behavior of Mills and her lawyers during her deposition.  That isn't the behavior of open, honest people with nothing to hide.  Despite that, I think the FBI has a meticulous timeline with more than enough evidence and no spin...  Just based on the public record.  But there is more.  So we wait, and like the weeks before Christmas look as some of the big lovely boxes that are all wrapped up, shake a couple and feel their substance, and wait to see what's inside.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So, why is Pags pleading the fifth?  What would possibly be self-incriminating about his role as Hillary's IT administrator?

Pags pleads the 5th, Mills walks out on the FBI questions on how she culled the emails, Bentel refused to testify or talk to the IG.... what's so illegal about storing and delivering emails, right? Obviously something.

 

[Henry Ford]

That statement, and similar ones, were made within the context of this thread and Hillary as a life long politician. It would have been more accurate for me to write, "I don't think Hillary has done anything seriously wrong," or "I don't think Hillary has done anything disqualifying." I have made both those arguments as well, and will continue to do so.

That being said, the Politifact article last night that called Hillary's statement that she had permission false is troubling, which is why I posted it. Apparently she did, in fact, do something wrong, and she deserves to be criticized for it- the problem is, IMO, is that the amount of criticism has been way over the top, basically for partisan reasons. Which in itself follows the same pattern of nearly every Clinton scandal. 

The disconnect between us, I think, is that while the article has convinced you that Clinton has done a thing wrong that I have been convinced of for some time, I don't believe that's the end of the wrongdoing.  Primarily because now virtually everything worthwhile she has said about the email issue has been proven false.  The rest of the allegations are things she has avoided addressing.

As someone who is pretty critical of her on this topic: The criticism is warranted if I am right.  And there is evidence that I am right, and she refuses to address it.  I understand that many people refuse to take the position that she has done something seriously wrong without the FBI/DOJ coming out and saying that I'm right.  But if they do, it will likely be too late to keep Trump from being president.  That's as problematic for me as the people who refuse to vote for Clinton against Trump are for you. It's why candidates under FBI investigation should drop out, in my opinion.

 

[pantagrapher]

Cool.  So leave us alone about it and stop using fear to tell people to vote for the terrible presumptive nominee.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

 

[The Commish]

What means the bold?  He puts them in a holding cell?  No...that seems like it'd be against the law.  If he wants to prevent certain people from his events, that's his prerogative I guess.  That's his right and the aftermath will be in the court of public opinion which won't end well.  So I wouldn't say I condone it.  I don't think we owe the media anything either.  We have so many outlets now, the information will always get out.

Correct.  Trump puts reporters in a pen.  It's discussed here. He puts them in a pen and then mocks them while his audience targets their anger at them.  Here's an accounting of it from someone on the beat.  And here's another first person account for good measure. Also described in those columns is how he blacklists reporters who he sees as giving unfavorable coverage.

If you don't have a huge problem with the way Trump treats the press, you should probably take a little time to read up on the historical importance of the free press and how the worst leaders in recent history have treated the press. Trump is the greatest enemy of the free press we've seen in this country in my life, by far. If you don't grasp the danger of that, or refuse to acknowledge it because CNN is stupid, you're part of the problem.

If you come around on this, lemme know and next we can talk about the threat he presents to separation of powers based on what he said about the judge in his Trump U case yesterday.  One part of the Constitution at a time.

Calm down....take a deep breath and back up a second.  I pay little attention to Trump.  I'm not voting for him and his supporters are beyond hope, so I consider them a lost cause and don't really engage any of them.  I make a mental note and avoid them as much as possible.  My original comments around our press/media were from a general perspective.  Every time I turn around, there's this feigning of "disbelief" when an individual doesn't give them the time of day as if the media/press is doing God's work and they can't fathom a world where X person won't talk to them.  THAT was the perspective under which I was making my comment.  This stuff is different and while its his right to handle them however he deems appropriate under the law, doesn't seem all that smart and is not covered in the behavior I was referencing previously.  There's really no "coming around" here...it's two different scenarios from my point of view but it IS another piece of evidence on the yuuuuge pile of reasons not to vote for him...I'll file it away accordingly, but I really don't need any more reasons.

I don't think there's any question, Trump knows little about our laws and if he were somehow elected, he's have some incredibly hard lessons to learn in the public eye.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've seen law firms turn around that many paper documents in about a week.  How the hell would that take 9 months?

It did, July to December 2014 from request to delivery to State, then I think it took State another 5 months January to May 2015 to start rolling stuff out. You tell me. Keep in mind this was not originally paper obviously. They had to print first from original email. Then they destroyed all the original electronic files.

eta - DParker, what would happen in a civil legal case if a corporation did that?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Calm down....take a deep breath and back up a second.  I pay little attention to Trump.  I'm not voting for him and his supporters are beyond hope, so I consider them a lost cause and don't really engage any of them.  I make a mental note and avoid them as much as possible.  My original comments around our press/media were from a general perspective.  Every time I turn around, there's this feigning of "disbelief" when an individual doesn't give them the time of day as if the media/press is doing God's work and they can't fathom a world where X person won't talk to them.  THAT was the perspective under which I was making my comment.  This stuff is different and while its his right to handle them however he deems appropriate under the law, doesn't seem all that smart and is not covered in the behavior I was referencing previously.  There's really no "coming around" here...it's two different scenarios from my point of view but it IS another piece of evidence on the yuuuuge pile of reasons not to vote for him...I'll file it away accordingly, but I really don't need any more reasons.

I don't think there's any question, Trump knows little about our laws and if he were somehow elected, he's have some incredibly hard lessons to learn in the public eye.

Cool.  My hope us that eventually people like yourself will read enough stuff like this that they'll realize that this isn't just a huge pile of reasons not to vote for him, but is in fact sufficient reason to do everything you possibly can to make sure he doesn't win, up to and including voting for whoever has the best chance of keeping him out of the white house, even if it's someone you don't like

One problem with electing him, btw, is that if he wins he doesn't have to learn any lessons.  If the people support him through all this garbage there's no reason he can't continue to do it. He can blackball reporters/outlets from covering his White House.  He can continue to provide false information without consequence and vilify any reporter who dares to ask him about it, inevitably subjecting that reporter to tons of harassment and nasty attacks that frequently crosses the line into racism/antisemitism/etc. from his supporters, which already happens constantly and which he has never condemned.

Anyway, now that you're a little familiar with how he treats the press and the dangers that presents, you might be interested in checking out the dangers of his recent comments about the judge.  Here's some links 1 2

Finally, consider this: what would happen if Clinton had the week that Trump is having?  If she launched into a long, angry, unhinged tirade about the media at a political event, including calling out some of them out by name and insulting them?  If documents in a civil proceeding exposed her as the heavily involved lead actor in an elaborate scam that instructed salespeople to aggressively target poor people including single mothers and encourage them to hand over thousands of dollars, on their credit cards if necessary?  If she went after a judge in a matter where she was a defendant with racially charged criticism and unfounded allegations of bias? She'd have been forced out of the race already.  Why are we OK with this double standard, and is it possible that it colors some of the negative perceptions of Clinton?

 

[timschochet]

The disconnect between us, I think, is that while the article has convinced you that Clinton has done a thing wrong that I have been convinced of for some time, I don't believe that's the end of the wrongdoing.  Primarily because now virtually everything worthwhile she has said about the email issue has been proven false.  The rest of the allegations are things she has avoided addressing.

As someone who is pretty critical of her on this topic: The criticism is warranted if I am right.  And there is evidence that I am right, and she refuses to address it.  I understand that many people refuse to take the position that she has done something seriously wrong without the FBI/DOJ coming out and saying that I'm right.  But if they do, it will likely be too late to keep Trump from being president.  That's as problematic for me as the people who refuse to vote for Clinton against Trump are for you. It's why candidates under FBI investigation should drop out, in my opinion.

Yeah, we simply disagree on almost all of this. But that's cool. I hope that when November comes around, and Hillary has not been indicted, you'll decide to vote for her.