Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[identikit]

So true

Very

 

[Henry Ford]

Doesn't this question demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of where the authority to classify anything at State resided?

If the activity proposed in the email had occurred I'm sure there are dot the t and cross the i task that would have been required to formally legitimize it, but beyond that....

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're saying, here.

If the email is real, this is a secure document.  She is directing someone to strip it of secure-identifying characteristics so it can be emailed non-secure because the secure fax isn't working.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're saying, here.

That can be said for many posts by BFS.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're saying, here.

If the email is real, this is a secure document.  She is directing someone to strip it of secure-identifying characteristics so it can be emailed non-secure because the secure fax isn't working.

I am fairly certain Saints posted about this months ago

They don't have evidence that Sullivan actually did send the secure documents via unsecured email, but it was noted that she appeared to be instructing him to break the law.

 

[Sinn Fein]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/01/11/hillary-clintons-travails-mount/

Hillary Clinton’s travails mount

With three weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses, you would think Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be firing on all cylinders. Recent developments, however, cannot be very reassuring to Hillaryland.

Polling, which may be more accurate on the Democratic side than on the GOP (where the turnout for Donald Trump is uncertain), tells us she is a little ahead in Iowa but behind in New Hampshire. In the latest NBC/Marist poll, Clinton leads Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by just three points. In New Hampshire, two of the latest polls have Sanders at 50 percent. If she does not win at least one of these contests, the effort to draft Vice President Joe Biden may heat up again.

Head-to-head polling shows Clinton behind most GOP presidential candidates nationally. In recent state polling, “Clinton leads Mr. Trump 48% to 40% in Iowa, but the two are essentially tied in New Hampshire.”

Clinton’s problems do not end with polling. One of the biggest stories of late concerns her email. In one recently released email, she directs then-State Department aide Jake Sullivan that if there was a problem with the secure fax they should “turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” Whether the document ultimately was sent secure (it apparently was) is irrelevant; here you have vivid evidence of her disdain for rules all national security officials are supposed to follow.

“Although there was already plenty of evidence already showing that Hillary Clinton knew exactly what the consequences were of not using State’s classified communications systems, this one is conclusive,” John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, tells me. “This is all the ‘specific intent’ any prosecutor should need.”

Translation: She cannot stop the GOP or the press from talking about it, but she sure does not like it.

This was posted in January.

 

[cobalt_27]

I am fairly certain Saints posted about this months ago

They don't have evidence that Sullivan actually did send the secure documents via unsecured email, but it was noted that she appeared to be instructing him to break the law.

Honest question: Is it a satisfactory defense from Hillary camp that it never happened?  From a legal perspective, it seems that ordering the Code Red is still a massive problem, even if it were never carried out.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The problems with the emails/server is that they are so vast - that stories like this come and go, and don't always register among all the other stories going on about the server.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Let me bump this,,,

On 1/27/2016 at 4:12 PM, Fla\/\/ed said:

  On 1/27/2016 at 3:27 PM, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Do people understand that Hillary Clinton has the authority to declassify documents that originate in the State Department so that they can be shared? This is only an issue if the classification comes from another agency. If some diplomat in State classifies an email and Hillary declassifies it to send it to Sidney Blumenthal, that is perfectly legal. All authority to classify of declassify a State Department document stems through her.

Well then....do you have a link for this and if this is all she did why is this investigation going on by the FBI?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85691.pdf

You'll need to read the entire regs, but the long and short of it is that she has the original classification authority, and she also has the highest declassification authority in the department (as you might expect). Also note that in addition to relating to a classifiable subject matter, in order to meet the requirements for classification, the OCA (here, Hillary) must determine that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm national security in a way that can be identified or described.

I know there is an investigation to determine what originally classified material was on the servers. It's not impossible that she could have improperly declassified another agency's information. Or it's possible that she could have declassified without dotting the Is and crossing the Ts (striking out the original classification as opposed to deleting it etc.). I just find a lot of the coverage of this kind of mystifying. I hear certain people claim that indictments are imminent, but I don't hear that from the NY Times or anything.

 

[jon_mx]

Why are we still talking about the boring emails!!!!  Did you guys not listen to Hillary's brilliant tear-jerking "Donald, tear down that wall" speech????

 

[cobalt_27]

The problems with the emails/server is that they are so vast - that stories like this come and go, and don't always register among all the other stories going on about the server.

Yeah, I think now coupled with the findings and tone of the OIG report, stuff like this has more salience.  I'll leave it to the FBI to put it all in its proper context, but...if this is true and can be verified, I can't imagine it being anything but awful for her.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's the speech Max.

http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/?xid=tcoshare

You decide. 

It looked like one personal attack after another.  How is that anything other than a red meat speech for the consumption of hard core partisans?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm not sure I have any idea what you're saying, here.

If the email is real, this is a secure document.  She is directing someone to strip it of secure-identifying characteristics so it can be emailed non-secure because the secure fax isn't working.

See Ramsey's posts.  Then reread my post to you earlier where I stated owned, produced, and/or created by the government, but not the State Department.  That "not the State Department" was there for a big reason.  Hopefully that "mishandling classified information" hurdle just got a lot higher for the person who got decide what was and what was not classified to begin with  for what likely was the vast majority of this content.

This is the reason why the original referral tried to prove that the four emails in question did not contain information that belonged to the State Department. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

It looked like one personal attack after another.  How is that anything other than a red meat speech for the consumption of hard core partisans?

Was this the speech that was supposed to be her mark?  The one that identifies her as The One?

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes... "declassification" doesn't mean "stripping of identifying information and scanning."

 

[cstu]

Was this the speech that was supposed to be her mark?  The one that identifies her as The One?

Your boy got owned, time to pull out in the insults.

 

[jon_mx]

Yes... "declassification" doesn't mean "stripping of identifying information and scanning."

I am sure there are more formal procedures in place for declassifying information.  Hillary does not just get to wave her broom and information becomes declassified.  There is a process to follow.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I am sure there are more formal procedures in place for declassifying information.  Hillary does not just get to wave her broom and information becomes declassified.  There is a process to follow.  

Which is covered in both my post and almost identically in the post from January.  And we can criticize Hillary for not following those formal procedures if the task in question was actually performed with no consideration of those procedures.   It doesn't appear that was the case.

 

[Henry Ford]

I am sure there are more formal procedures in place for declassifying information.  Hillary does not just get to wave her broom and information becomes declassified.  There is a process to follow.  

Provided that declassificion isn't some major national security necessity, I guess.  I don't know what that would even mean, but I guess it's possible.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Your boy got owned, time to pull out in the insults.

Who is "my boy"?  Trump?  You haven't been reading this thread.

 

[Henry Ford]

And, again, we have no idea to this point what document we are talking about.  The email was redacted, however, which suggests the information it discusses is currently considered secure.

 

[Willie Neslon]

The speech never trended on twitter. Most websites have it as about the 8th story, somewhere in between Chewbacca mom/family getting scholarships and stories about what fentanyl is. Meanwhile positive stories about Trump are tops on cbs and nbc news sites. If this is the best she's got, it's over.  Someone made a great point earlier.  She basically just did the same thing Jindal and Romney did in the primaries. That's her big campaign strategy: do like Jindal.

 

[Henry Ford]

Great, now fentanyl is going to get Congress trying to make it impossible to get.  Thanks, Clinton.

 

[squistion]

The speech never trended on twitter. Most websites have it as about the 8th story, somewhere in between Chewbacca mom/family getting scholarships and stories about what fentanyl is. Meanwhile positive stories about Trump are tops on cbs and nbc news sites. If this is the best she's got, it's over.  Someone made a great point earlier.  She basically just did the same thing Jindal and Romney did in the primaries. That's her big campaign strategy: do like Jindal.

That means nothing.

What is really important - what does Hive Mind think?

 

[MaxThreshold]

That means nothing.

What is really important is, what does Hive Mind think?

People were so uninterested in her speech that no one bothered to ask Hive Mind.

 

[cstu]

Republicans praised Hillary...until she was running for president.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Provided that declassificion isn't some major national security necessity, I guess.  I don't know what that would even mean, but I guess it's possible.

I may be misunderstanding, your post and this reply may be off base-

 In fiscal year 2010, officials made 77 million decisions to classify information. Even the most security-minded government officials — including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, and Porter J. Goss, the former director of national intelligence — have said that far too much information is classified. Defense Department and National Security Council experts have estimated that anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be made public.

So like I said most everything classified should not be classified and no impact on national security - per those "who take this stuff very seriously".  And the other misunderstanding, especially with all the "born classified" nonsense is this

The most important and the most urgent aspect of overclassification pertains to classified information that does meet the standards for classification under the executive order, but that nevertheless should not be classified for one reason or another.

It is important to understand that the executive order on classification does not require the classification of any information at all. It is permissive, not mandatory.  It consistently says that information “may” be classified under certain circumstances, not that it “must” be classified.

(Even some government officials who should know better sometimes get this wrong.  The new DoJ Inspector General report states in passing that “Section 1.4 of EO 13526… includes intelligence sources or methods as a category of information that shall be classified” (p. 23, footnote 27, emph. added).  That’s a mistake.  Section 1.4 speaks of information that may or may not be “considered for classification,” including intelligence sources of methods, but it does not dictate the classification of such information.)

But while the executive order does not require classification of anything, it allows classification of an overwhelming, practically unlimited volume of information.  And it is within this permissible range of classification, far more than outside of it, that overclassification needs to be addressed.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yeah, I don't really know why you posted that.  I was saying I guess it's theoretically possible for emergency declassification to be necessary in order to preserve security, but otherwise she needs to follow procedure.  Which is not "make it look not classified and send it."

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I may be misunderstanding, your post and this reply may be off base-

 In fiscal year 2010, officials made 77 million decisions to classify information. Even the most security-minded government officials — including Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, and Porter J. Goss, the former director of national intelligence — have said that far too much information is classified. Defense Department and National Security Council experts have estimated that anywhere from 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could safely be made public.

So like I said most everything classified should not be classified and no impact on national security - per those "who take this stuff very seriously".  And the other misunderstanding, especially with all the "born classified" nonsense is this

The most important and the most urgent aspect of overclassification pertains to classified information that does meet the standards for classification under the executive order, but that nevertheless should not be classified for one reason or another.

It is important to understand that the executive order on classification does not require the classification of any information at all. It is permissive, not mandatory.  It consistently says that information “may” be classified under certain circumstances, not that it “must” be classified.

(Even some government officials who should know better sometimes get this wrong.  The new DoJ Inspector General report states in passing that “Section 1.4 of EO 13526… includes intelligence sources or methods as a category of information that shall be classified” (p. 23, footnote 27, emph. added).  That’s a mistake.  Section 1.4 speaks of information that may or may not be “considered for classification,” including intelligence sources of methods, but it does not dictate the classification of such information.)

But while the executive order does not require classification of anything, it allows classification of an overwhelming, practically unlimited volume of information.  And it is within this permissible range of classification, far more than outside of it, that overclassification needs to be addressed.

Classifying documents is a royal pain in the ### no doubt.  But rules concerning the handling of classified information are pretty clear.  You can't setup your own server and email.  And any regular worker that did that would lose their security clearance on the spot and most likely be arrested especially if it were close the amount Hillary had.

 

[cobalt_27]

The speech never trended on twitter. Most websites have it as about the 8th story, somewhere in between Chewbacca mom/family getting scholarships and stories about what fentanyl is. Meanwhile positive stories about Trump are tops on cbs and nbc news sites. If this is the best she's got, it's over.  Someone made a great point earlier.  She basically just did the same thing Jindal and Romney did in the primaries. That's her big campaign strategy: do like Jindal.

This is her wheelhouse.  She knows foreign policy issues like the back of her hand.  Not that she makes the best decisions all the time with that information, but there's no denying she has command of this particular subject matter.  And, she quite effectively made the case for that and made the case that her opponent is a bumbling idiot and doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about.  And, I don't think that's a deniable point, and it's dangerous.

In my view, credit where it's deserved.  She delivered an excellent speech, particularly by her standards, as she is quite possibly--just from a stylistic standpoint--he stiffest, most unnatural, most uninteresting speaker in my lifetime.  It may be the 8th story in some circles, but I don't think there's any denying it elevated her, overall.

Which is a shame from my perspective, because I think it will ultimately be all for naught.  She is going to have problems larger than running for the White House soon, and if there's not a replacement for her in Kerry, Biden, Warren, or whomever, we all lose as a result of her recklessness opening the door for this dimwit and truly awful human being becoming our next POTUS.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yeah, I don't really know why you posted that.  I was saying I guess it's theoretically possible for emergency declassification to be necessary in order to preserve security, but otherwise she needs to follow procedure.  Which is not "make it look not classified and send it."

I said that I may be misreading.  And I agree Hillary should have stated in that email to "mark the item as declassified under my discretion/authority and send it to me".  Which I believe fully complies with the foreign affairs manual and left no doubt to intent.   And, no I don't know if this was actually her intent but I believe that this is reasonable enough (absent learning that the information wasn't State's) to prevent this from being any smoking gun to any prosecutor.  And again, my admitted bias is that redacting these 2000 emails is odds on far greater of a threat to national security in preventing you and I from having the information we need to "consent" to those governing, or in this case want to govern.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It does appear that the reply email to Sullivan was also sent from a different address than the original email from Sullivan was sent to.  That's weird, too.

That is definitely odd. HDR22 and HROD17. Both "H" (whoever that is).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I said that I may be misreading.  And I agree Hillary should have stated in that email to "mark the item as declassified under my discretion/authority and send it to me".  Which I believe fully complies with the foreign affairs manual and left no doubt to intent.   And, no I don't know if this was actually her intent but I believe that this is reasonable enough (absent learning that the information wasn't State's) to prevent this from being any smoking gun to any prosecutor.  And again, my admitted bias is that redacting these 2000 emails is odds on far greater of a threat to national security in preventing you and I from having the information we need to "consent" to those governing, or in this case want to govern.

...

And btw if this information is so harmless and if it did originate with State then John Kerry could declassify it right now. But he doesn't.

And Hillary could intervene in the Foia case with an amicus curiae brief and explain why it should be declassified - which the court can't do but she could challenge the courts' inability to do so as well. But she doesn't.

And you who argue against retroactivity at the same time argue that Hillary should be allowed to go back in time and magically declassify something which she clearly knew was classified and yet did not feel she could overtly declassify.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It does appear that the reply email to Sullivan was also sent from a different address than the original email from Sullivan was sent to.  That's weird, too.

That is definitely odd. HDR22 and HROD17. Both "H" (whoever that is).

Here you go.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I said that I may be misreading.  And I agree Hillary should have stated in that email to "mark the item as declassified under my discretion/authority and send it to me".  Which I believe fully complies with the foreign affairs manual and left no doubt to intent.   And, no I don't know if this was actually her intent but I believe that this is reasonable enough (absent learning that the information wasn't State's) to prevent this from being any smoking gun to any prosecutor.  And again, my admitted bias is that redacting these 2000 emails is odds on far greater of a threat to national security in preventing you and I from having the information we need to "consent" to those governing, or in this case want to govern.

I think you know by now that this is only relevant if the information originated with State in the first place.

Why do you do this?  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Honest question: Is it a satisfactory defense from Hillary camp that it never happened?  From a legal perspective, it seems that ordering the Code Red is still a massive problem, even if it were never carried out.

I don't think the where/when of this has been settled.

One problem with this IIRC was Hillary was abroad at the time, the question is where. State says she was in.... (can't remember) but she may have been in the mideast or Africa or traveling in between. Which is part of teh problem, the blackberry was particularly vulnerable to signals intelligence abroad.

There is also IIRC the possibility that Hillary was corresponding with Blumenthal when the fax issue was going on and he too was faxing Hillary. Hard to remember the details but the where/who is not cut and dried.

And yes the Code Red would be a massive problem. It shows a practice or MO, basically this is what she is accused of, circumventing the secure system. Here she is seen doing it in real time. There's at least one other instance of this and maybe another as well.

One other point about "non paper":

- That's either as Henry points out, sort of manually redacting the document, taking out the headings and markings and scanning and resending elsewhere;

- or - it's taking the information from the formal documentation and retranscribing it into something less formal, like an email.

The second is a bigger problem because the first is cumbersome as a practice, but the second would exactly explain how information which can only be seen in a SCIF and on SIPRNET and even higher systems could leap from the secure system to the nonsecure system.

This would explain the method for almost any and all of the most sensitive situations Hillary is under investigation for.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why do you do this?  

Edited, my bad. I just missed it.

 

[Henry Ford]

I said that I may be misreading.  And I agree Hillary should have stated in that email to "mark the item as declassified under my discretion/authority and send it to me".  Which I believe fully complies with the foreign affairs manual and left no doubt to intent.   And, no I don't know if this was actually her intent but I believe that this is reasonable enough (absent learning that the information wasn't State's) to prevent this from being any smoking gun to any prosecutor.  And again, my admitted bias is that redacting these 2000 emails is odds on far greater of a threat to national security in preventing you and I from having the information we need to "consent" to those governing, or in this case want to govern.

Well... mostly.  Of course, she didn't declassify it. She suggested it be sent nonsecure.

Nothing should be classified unless warranted.  If new information warrants declassification, it shouldbe declassified.  "The secure fax isn't working" doesn't really qualify, though.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't think the where/when of this has been settled.

One problem with this IIRC was Hillary was abroad at the time, the question is where. State says she was in.... (can't remember) but she may have been in the mideast or Africa or traveling in between. Which is part of teh problem, the blackberry was particularly vulnerable to signals intelligence abroad.

There is also IIRC the possibility that Hillary was corresponding with Blumenthal when the fax issue was going on and he too was faxing Hillary. Hard to remember the details but the where/who is not cut and dried.

And yes the Code Red would be a massive problem. It shows a practice or MO, basically this is what she is accused of, circumventing the secure system. Here she is seen doing it in real time. There's at least one other instance of this and maybe another as well.

One other point about "non paper":

- That's either as Henry points out, sort of manually redacting the document, taking out the headings and markings and scanning and resending elsewhere;

- or - it's taking the information from the formal documentation and retranscribing it into something less formal, like an email.

The second is a bigger problem because the first is cumbersome as a practice, but the second would exactly explain how information which can only be seen in a SCIF and on SIPRNET and even higher systems could leap from the secure system to the nonsecure system.

This would explain the method for almost any and all of the most sensitive situations Hillary is under investigation for.

Sigh.  Thanks for the exhaustive explanation.  

Incidentally, there should be FBG career awards here.  Faust for his unrelenting football updates from the media, Chris Yandek and Tim for their tireless efforts to make themselves household names at FBG, and your insanely comprehensive distillation and assembly of important, despite otherwise unknown, bits of information and providing the relevant context they deserve.  Thank you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(thanks man I like Faust in TSP myself, I appreciate y'all letting me expound on this minutiae as well) Cheers

 

[cobalt_27]

(thanks man I like Faust in TSP myself, I appreciate y'all letting me expound on this minutiae as well) Cheers

 I'm a big fan of Faust as well.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm off to bed, but ...

...

And btw if this information is so harmless and if it did originate with State then John Kerry could declassify it right now. But he doesn't.

If I had platform that reached enough readers I'd be starting one of these   I would not expect anyone in the executive branch to voluntarily touch this, beyond public statements with a ten foot pool.  This isn't what I'd want, but what I'd expect from those that want a career past January.

And Hillary could intervene in the Foia case with an amicus curiae brief and explain why it should be declassified - which the court can't do but she could challenge the courts' inability to do so as well. But she doesn't.

That would seem like a pretty stupid allocation of resources during a campaign, especially if she knows that there is nothing damning that there.   She just allows the FBI do the work for her.  I might be swayed to think otherwise if she had doubts that the report could be damning.  And I'm talking about this from a strategic perspective for Hillary and her campaign, not what I'd want.

And you who argue against retroactivity at the same time argue that Hillary should be allowed to go back in time and magically declassify something which she clearly knew was classified and yet did not feel she could overtly declassify.

I argue that these emails were by definition retroactively classified.  I argue that I seriously doubt that they need to be classified and thus should not be classified.  However, I have also stated that the content probably fits withing the broad guidelines of what can be classified and since the information is likely no longer being actively communicated that there is no longer an overriding function to prevent it from being classified by an overworked FOIA clerk (or whatever the title is) who, like many have suggested is more likely to lose his or her job for not classifying the document than for overclassifying things.  U have also argued that other agencies dealing with intelligence have historically accused State of freely passing around information which is only classified "after the fact" in response to something like FOIA request.  Which I have asserted is the cultural differences between the diplomatic mission of State and the more direct security mission of the other agencies.

And I have no problem with someone with the full authority to use their discretion to declassify anything that is not a threat to the nation's security or to purposefully threaten an individual's safety,

I don't really see any inconsistencies with this position, but if I keep typing as tired as I am I'll probably give you one or two,

 

[fantasycurse42]

And the reason I cried is because she ended the speech with a statement about American exceptionalism, and why we are such a great country. I suppose a critic could call this nationalism, but if so it was a statement of thoughtful, reasoned nationalism, and not the mindless nationalism that Trump is promoting. Hillary says we are great because of our ideals and that we will only remain great so long as we stay loyal to those ideals. That is EXACTLY my philosophy. And when she spoke of those ideals and why it was so important to be the country that we are, I cried. And I'm not at all ashamed of it. 

Dude, wtf? I'm not someone that follows you around or bashes you just bc. I have nothing against you, and you can take this with a grain of salt, but you should be ashamed about this. 

Would you tell your coworkers this at work tomorrow? What type of reaction would that elicit? Would they expect to hear this? What does your wife say when you're sitting there weeping from a Hillary Clinton speech? 

I'm genuinely curious about my questions. 

She's a politician! She charges a quarter of a million dollars for an hour of her time, she doesn't care about you, me, or anyone else  

I'd love to see her give a free speech or something away that wouldn't benefit her at all. 

You ever see the Curb Yor Enthusiasm episode where Ted Danson donates a wing to the NRDC under the name anonymous, then proceeds to tell everyone he is anonymous? That's her, except she'd have staffers circulating the room letting everyone know.

 

[timschochet]

Dude, wtf? I'm not someone that follows you around or bashes you just bc. I have nothing against you, and you can take this with a grain of salt, but you should be ashamed about this. 

Would you tell your coworkers this at work tomorrow? What type of reaction would that elicit? Would they expect to hear this? What does your wife say when you're sitting there weeping from a Hillary Clinton speech? 

I'm genuinely curious about my questions. 

She's a politician! She charges a quarter of a million dollars for an hour of her time, she doesn't care about you, me, or anyone else  

I'd love to see her give a free speech or something away that wouldn't benefit her at all. 

You ever see the Curb Yor Enthusiasm episode where Ted Danson donates a wing to the NRDC under the name anonymous, then proceeds to tell everyone he is anonymous? That's her, except she'd have staffers circulating the room letting everyone know.

First off she's given free speeches all the time. All throughout her years as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State she gave speeches for numerous causes and never charged a cent for any of them (she wasn't allowed to.) Even after leaving Secretary of State, she has donated her time and efforts to all kinds of causes without pay. I'm frankly a little stunned that you didn't know this. 

Why should I be ashamed? Incidentally my only co-workers are my dad and my office manager, and I would have no problem telling either of them this. My dad is not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but he knows what I think about her. My wife IS a fan, but she would probably laugh at me weeping. She teases me all the time about it- I cry a lot watching movies as well. I have read that Winston Churchill constantly wept at movies and public occasions, so I think I'm in pretty good company. 

Yes, Hillary is a politician. Today, however, she was a statesman. That's what moved me. 

 

[timschochet]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/06/hillary_clinton_s_anti_trump_speech.html

For those who thought Hillary Clinton needed proxies or a running mate to attack Donald Trump with the savagery required of a long-slog campaign, her Thursday speech in San Diego should be a mind-changer.

The all-but-inevitable Democratic nominee showed that she’s fit to be her own attack dog, mauling her ill-matched Republican foe to shreds without getting muddy in the process.

Not two minutes into the speech, she calmly and coolly delivered this broadside:

Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different; they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies. He is not just unprepared, he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability, and immense responsibility. This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes, because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because someone got under his very thin skin.

The audience gasped at hearing “bizarre,” tittered at “personal feuds,” and burst into laughter and applause at “very thin skin.” They hadn’t heard any presidential candidate talk like this—they certainly hadn’t heard Clinton talk like this. It was a full takedown of Trump, but in an anti-Trump manner, spoken not in vague adolescent epithets (“stupid,” “idiotic,” “crooked,” “goofy”), but in an itemized checklist of his utter, almost laughable unsuitability for the job.


“I will leave it to the psychiatrists,” she said later, to explain Trump’s “bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America,” not least Vladimir Putin, for whom Trump shows not the slightest understanding and who, because of that, she reminded Trump—“will eat your lunch.”
Reciting her own experience as first lady, senator, and secretary of state (as she sometimes does with a bit too much self-indulgence, but it was completely fitting here), she said, “Every president makes hard choices every day with imperfect information and conflicting imperatives. … Making the right call takes a cool head and respect for the facts. … It also takes humility, knowing you don’t know everything, because if you’re convinced you’re always right, you’ll never ask the hard questions.” Recalling President Obama’s hard choices the night of the Osama Bin Laden raid, she said, elevating her voice a bit, “Imagine Donald Trump sitting in the Situation Room, making life-or-death decisions for the United States”—prompting the audience, by this time secure in her palm, to laugh and howl, “No-o-o-o-o-oo” in protest.

She flung forth the entire litany of his shortcomings: his proposals to default on the national debt (treating the economy “like one of his casinos”), his pronouncement that he knows more about ISIS than the generals, his advocacy of torture and of murdering the relatives of suspected terrorists, his demonization of Muslims (“playing right into the hands of ISIS”), his dismissiveness toward America’s allies and their importance to U.S. security, his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal (“Donald Trump doesn’t know the first thing about Iran or its nuclear program—ask him; it will become very clear, very quickly”), his persistent mockery and nastiness (“He has no sense of what it takes to deal with multiple countries with competing interests and reaching a solution that everyone can get behind”), his paucity of ideas about how to solve the world’s real problems (“He doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about”).


On each point, she contrasted his flimsy prejudices not only with her own experience and thought-out views but also with the long-standing, bipartisan traditions of American diplomacy.
Then she kicked Trump in the shins. Pointing to his claims that “the world is laughing at us,” she scoffed, “He’s been saying this for decades. He bought full-page ads in newspapers across America back in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was president, saying America lacked a backbone and the world was laughing at us. He was wrong then, and he’s wrong now. And you’ve got to wonder why somebody who has so little confidence in America—and has felt that way for at least 30 years—wants to be our president.”
This election suddenly got a little bit fun.

 

[dparker713]

Yeah, seriously no shtick...that is utterly and completely ridiculous.  You cried at a stump speech from a politician.  Eek

Nothing wrong with crying

 

[dparker713]

It looked like one personal attack after another.  How is that anything other than a red meat speech for the consumption of hard core partisans?

She's not trying to appeal to you - she doesn't need your vote.  She needs the votes Obama got - she gets those and she's golden.

 

[jon_mx]

So when does Hillary get to take the 5th to FBI questions?  

 

[dparker713]

Yeah, I don't really know why you posted that.  I was saying I guess it's theoretically possible for emergency declassification to be necessary in order to preserve security, but otherwise she needs to follow procedure.  Which is not "make it look not classified and send it."

Who decides the procedure on how to declassify documents?  

 

[dparker713]

I don't think the where/when of this has been settled.

One problem with this IIRC was Hillary was abroad at the time, the question is where. State says she was in.... (can't remember) but she may have been in the mideast or Africa or traveling in between. Which is part of teh problem, the blackberry was particularly vulnerable to signals intelligence abroad.

There is also IIRC the possibility that Hillary was corresponding with Blumenthal when the fax issue was going on and he too was faxing Hillary. Hard to remember the details but the where/who is not cut and dried.

And yes the Code Red would be a massive problem. It shows a practice or MO, basically this is what she is accused of, circumventing the secure system. Here she is seen doing it in real time. There's at least one other instance of this and maybe another as well.

One other point about "non paper":

- That's either as Henry points out, sort of manually redacting the document, taking out the headings and markings and scanning and resending elsewhere;

- or - it's taking the information from the formal documentation and retranscribing it into something less formal, like an email.

The second is a bigger problem because the first is cumbersome as a practice, but the second would exactly explain how information which can only be seen in a SCIF and on SIPRNET and even higher systems could leap from the secure system to the nonsecure system.

This would explain the method for almost any and all of the most sensitive situations Hillary is under investigation for.

Option 3 would be removing the information that needed to be classified and sending the remainder. 

 

[jon_mx]

She's not trying to appeal to you - she doesn't need your vote.  She needs the votes Obama got - she gets those and she's golden.

Tim was claiming it was one of the greatest statesmen speeches if al time.  I was commenting on that.