Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[The Commish]

Oh you've done it now MT...you don't tell others what your vote means to you.  That's their job.  THEY tell YOU what your vote means to you.

And to save a couple pages, this is how it works:

If you are conservative and don't vote for Trump you are essentially voting for Hillary.  If you're a liberal and don't vote for Hillary you are essentially voting for Trump, even though you've pulled the lever for neither   

How it actually works is that if you rely on other people to prevent a Trump presidency you can no longer claim to be a sane, rational individual.

agreed on the bold (might want to hash out the rest with the Hillary crew here though)....I won't be relying on anyone else to NOT vote for Trump for me.  I can NOT vote for him all on my own    

 

[dparker713]

You're the one suggesting the details. I am just saying there probably was more information exchanged besides personal family highlights - who knows what form that took.  Its not everyday you stop a friend on the tarmac and climb aboard their plane and ask how the grandchildren are.  This is a worse lie than trying to blame Benghazi on a video.  

I didn't suggest details.  I listed facts and inserted your theory, which is absurd.  

 

[dparker713]

I think you've got this exactly backwards. The mistake of the protest voters for Brexit was voting for something they didn't actually want to have happen. If I vote for Hillary, I'd be voting for something I don't actually want to have happen (a Clinton presidency) just as a protest against Trump. If I vote for Johnson, I'd be voting for what I really want, just like the Brexit voters should have done, and just like I hope everyone else in this election does.

Except this isn't a binary choice.  In your ordinal rankings, you listed not-Trump as your number one choice.  So, voting for Hillary is the most beneficial as Johnson's or Stein's ceiling is below Trump's floor.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think you've got this exactly backwards. The mistake of the protest voters for Brexit was voting for something they didn't actually want to have happen. If I vote for Hillary, I'd be voting for something I don't actually want to have happen (a Clinton presidency) just as a protest against Trump. If I vote for Johnson, I'd be voting for what I really want, just like the Brexit voters should have done, and just like I hope everyone else in this election does.

If this is your logic then your vote only makes sense if you write in the one person you think is best for the job among the 150 million or so who are eligible for it.  Any other vote, be it for Johnson or Clinton or anyone else, is a compromise between your actual preference and a strategic decision based on the likely behavior of other voters.

Do you think that Gary Johnson would literally be the best possible choice for president among all natural-born citizens of the United States over the age of 35 who have not already served two terms?

 

[Sand]

it's never been THIS monolithic. 

Very true.  Usually 90/10.  

 

[Parrothead]

it's cute that people try to tell others who they should vote for

 

[Sand]

it's cute that people try to tell others who they should vote for

Isn't that the essence of politics?

 

[RCon]

I'm thinking maybe the 1000+ posts discussing whether it's better/necessary to vote for Clinton as a not-Trump vote versus vote third-party have served any potential purpose they may have once had...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

AUSAs aren't appointed - though they're hardly unambitious.  Also, it seems unlikely a case of this notoriety would pass through any USA office without being decided by the USA. 

Exactly, who is appointed.

I think this does serve the purpose that if an FBI recommendation for indictment is later leaked then at least this guarantee will have been on the books to call them on.

 

[Jayrok]

Petraues broke the law.  It's not at at all clear that Clinton did so, as we have broken down repeatedly in this thread. Yes she received training on handling classified material. She thought she was in compliance with the requirements by using a private server. I don't know if that's true or not, but it doesn't really matter to me. Even if it's not I think she showed poor judgment and I hold that against her ... but every candidate in history has shown poor judgment at one time or another, and she is IMO very clearly the vastly superior option of the two people remaining with a real chance to win the presidency. If you disagree, vote accordingly I suppose.

I'm not sure what else you want from her. She made a mistake.  She said as much.  What else do you want her to do on her campaign?  Should she start every stump speech with an apology?

Also- "our government is more broken than we can imagine"?  Really?  Fifty things worse than that happen every day.  Right now funding for Zika research is being blocked in the Senate because the GOP threw riders on the bill stripping Obamacare funding and protecting the right to fly the confederate flag and the Dems balked ... and you think Hillary Clinton using a .com email instead of her assigned .gov email (just like her predecessors did btw) is beyond any governance problems we previously imagined?  I think maybe a little perspective is in order, no?

1.  Yes, Petraues willingly gave classified info to his biographer.  I don't believe HRC willingly mishandled classified material with intent to distribute it to an outside party.  As such, I do not believe she will be indicted for criminal charges.

2.  "Yes she received training on handling classified material. She thought she was in compliance with the requirements by using a private server."   I'm sorry but there is no way she could have received and understood training on handling of classified material and believe she was in compliance by using a private server.  No way. 

3.  Yes, every candidate shows poor judgment.  Of course.  And whether she's the superior candidate remaining in the race is just irrelevant.  She may very well be.  My objection isn't based on me wanting someone like Trump as president.  If he did the same thing, I'd say the same things.  If John Kerry, as Secretary of State, did this.. he would resign.  I have no doubt about that.  If HRC was still the Sec of State, I believe they'd pressure her into a resignation from the post.

4.  What else I want from her?  Just due process.  I don't believe she committed a criminal act by willingly disclosing classified material.  She was negligent.  That's fine.  Whether I think that she thinks she is above the law is also irrelevant.  She willingly circumvented approved handling requirements for emails that can potentially include classified material  So what should happen.  Forget the criminal charges.. there will never be a conviction as they will have to prove her intent to disclose that material to non-authorized personnel.  To me she didn't do that.  I don't want her to go to jail or anything like that.  

5.  Fifty thing worse than that happen every day.  Well, yeah.  Each person has his/her own perspective.  Mine is vastly different than yours in this particular case.  I agree with you that the corruption is rampant in DC.  Nothing new to report there.  Political corruption has and will always be present.  To me this is very different than normal political games that are played.

6.  Using a .com email vs a .gov or .mil...  It isn't about that, TF.  Forget the private .com server for a moment.  If she had processed classified material on the wrong .gov or .mil server, it would be the same thing.  There are specific systems identified that are authorized for use with that material.  Not normal .mil or .gov.  High side and low side.  

Using a private personal email server is essentially the same thing as writing it down on a private ledger or notebook.  That is what Petraues did.  It is a violation of regulations, but not yet a criminal act.  His criminal act was taking that notebook and giving it to a non-authorized person.  If HRC sent an email containing class material to a reporter or her daughter, or Bill, or anyone without a security clearance that matched the classification and a need to know, then it would be a criminal act, imo.  She would have willingly emailed that material to a non-authorized person.  But that is a big "if".  I don't know if she did or not.  Was some of the email deleted?  who knows.  Maybe she didn't realize it was classified.  Gross negligence, sure.  But maybe not criminal.  But drone strike info, targets... come on.  If she didn't know it was classified, all the more reason she isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of the military.  And of course, I'm not saying Trump is fit either.  But that is a different issue.  

But whether she did or didn't commit a criminal act, she still has to answer for storing the classified material on a non-authorized platform.  That is my main issue.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm thinking maybe the 1000+ posts discussing whether it's better/necessary to vote for Clinton as a not-Trump vote versus vote third-party have served any potential purpose they may have once had...

I disagree. I've never gotten an answer to the question I posed to MT.  Not sure I've ever asked it in those terms, actually.

If the argument is that you should vote for the person you like so you feel good about it and not game your vote to have the greatest impact based on the likely behavior of other voters, why not vote in the absolute best possible choice instead of simply choosing from the names on the ballot? Like maybe Gregg Popovich or Michelle Obama or Studs 'n Duds?  For that matter why not vote for yourself?  Seems like a pretty good gig, and nobody would do a better job acting according to your wishes than you would.

 

[badmojo1006]

it's cute that people try to tell others who they should vote for

Really? You have never voiced your opinion about any Politician or issue?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Except this isn't a binary choice.  In your ordinal rankings, you listed not-Trump as your number one choice.  So, voting for Hillary is the most beneficial as Johnson's or Stein's ceiling is below Trump's floor.  

Now you're making a decent argument -- but it relies on the false premise that I'd be voting primarily to try to affect the outcome of the election. If that were my reason for voting, I'd stay home because there's no sound argument for the proposition that my likelihood of affecting the outcome justifies the time it would take to vote. If I vote, it will be so that I can feel good about participating in the democratic process and expressing my true preference based on what I believe is best for the country.

 

[Parrothead]

Really? You have never voiced your opinion about any Politician or issue?

i don't go around telling people that they are stupid for voting for x or y..  

 

[Smack Tripper]

Mark Halpern reporting that Lynch is ALREADY backing down from todays possible (?) grandstand move of saying she would follow the recommendation.  She WILL reserve her right to judgement on the findings

https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin/status/748867261658636289

 

[Phil Elliott]

I didn't suggest details.  I listed facts and inserted your theory, which is absurd.  

You don't think there was more information exchanged than just some family updates on the grand kids and golf? OK.

 

[Jayrok]

What does this mean?

This is why I understand why guys like you and Tim say they don't care about the email issue.  You don't know what's involved with these types of investigations.  I'm not talking about criminal, grand jury trials.  There are in-house steps that are followed with anyone at any point in the chain of command who has a violation.  What she did would lead to a resignation or forced retirement for anyone near her level.  Just mishandling classified material would result in a slap on the wrist for lower level types.  Loss of clearance, eligibility for promotion.  My point is if (IF) she gets away without any repercussions... it will be sad.  Again, this is my opinion.  

 

[The Commish]

I'm thinking maybe the 1000+ posts discussing whether it's better/necessary to vote for Clinton as a not-Trump vote versus vote third-party have served any potential purpose they may have once had...

I disagree. I've never gotten an answer to the question I posed to MT.  Not sure I've ever asked it in those terms, actually.

If the argument is that you should vote for the person you like so you feel good about it and not game your vote to have the greatest impact based on the likely behavior of other voters, why not vote in the absolute best possible choice instead of simply choosing from the names on the ballot? Like maybe Gregg Popovich or Michelle Obama or Studs 'n Duds?  For that matter why not vote for yourself?  Seems like a pretty good gig, and nobody would do a better job acting according to your wishes than you would.

I'd agree with this if all states allowed "write in" candidates, but not all states do.  In those state, like mine, you are forced to vote for one that's on the ballot.  So I have to determine which of them best aligns with me even if I think there's another option that's better than any on the ballot.

 

[RCon]

I disagree. I've never gotten an answer to the question I posed to MT.  Not sure I've ever asked it in those terms, actually.

If the argument is that you should vote for the person you like so you feel good about it and not game your vote to have the greatest impact based on the likely behavior of other voters, why not vote in the absolute best possible choice instead of simply choosing from the names on the ballot? Like maybe Gregg Popovich or Michelle Obama or Studs 'n Duds?  For that matter why not vote for yourself?  Seems like a pretty good gig, and nobody would do a better job acting according to your wishes than you would.

1. I disagree with "seems like a pretty good gig".  Have you seen how much the last several seem to have aged over eight years?

2. IMO, the greatest impact I can have is to offer a "none-of-the-above" vote that gets taken seriously by "the powers that be".  I don't believe a write-in accomplishes that, as it gets tossed in the "non-serious votes" pile as if it were a vote for Mickey Mouse or Lizard People.  A vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein connotes a level of dissatisfaction that can be taken much more seriously.  It also offers the added benefit of contributing to getting those parties onto ballots automatically in the future.

Edit: #2 above is offered literally, with the obvious qualifier that my one vote doesn't make any difference whatsoever in the final outcome of anything, be it the actual election, who takes what seriously, etc.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If this is your logic then your vote only makes sense if you write in the one person you think is best for the job among the 150 million or so who are eligible for it.  Any other vote, be it for Johnson or Clinton or anyone else, is a compromise between your actual preference and a strategic decision based on the likely behavior of other voters.

Do you think that Gary Johnson would literally be the best possible choice for president among all natural-born citizens of the United States over the age of 35 who have not already served two terms?

Anyone who does not want to be President and isn't prepared to be President, hasn't campaigned, isn't on the ballot in any state, and doesn't even have a running mate, can be excluded, I think. Of the remaining choices, I think Gary Johnson is literally the best possible candidate (though, as I said, I have not spent any time looking into other third-party candidates yet).

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is why I understand why guys like you and Tim say they don't care about the email issue.  You don't know what's involved with these types of investigations.  I'm not talking about criminal, grand jury trials.  There are in-house steps that are followed with anyone at any point in the chain of command who has a violation.  What she did would lead to a resignation or forced retirement for anyone near her level.  Just mishandling classified material would result in a slap on the wrist for lower level types.  Loss of clearance, eligibility for promotion.  My point is if (IF) she gets away without any repercussions... it will be sad.  Again, this is my opinion.  

Are you sure you're not confusing military procedures with civilian procedures?  I know nothing about military procedures, but I have a little personal experience with this stuff on the federal civilian level and I've never heard of any sort of process like the one you seem to be describing.

Anyway, appreciate the response, and I understand its just your opinion. I'm not the world's foremost authority on the Clinton email scandal so if you've seen something in there that you think demands repercussions, so be it.  Just asking some questions.

 

[cobalt_27]

So, is Lynch recusing herself from this investigation?  I just turned on the tv.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For that matter why not vote for yourself?  Seems like a pretty good gig, and nobody would do a better job acting according to your wishes than you would.

This last part is definitely not true. My wish is for a competent President. I'd be way out of my depth, even more than Trump would be.

 

[cobalt_27]

So, is Lynch recusing herself from this investigation?  I just turned on the tv.

Ok, so she's still on the case buy clarifying that she'll accept the recommendations from the FBI/DoJ

 

[Phil Elliott]

So, is Lynch recusing herself from this investigation?  I just turned on the tv.

Just sounds like she is going to "accept" the FBI findings which she would have done anyway.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. I disagree with "seems like a pretty good gig".  Have you seen how much the last several seem to have aged over eight years?

2. IMO, the greatest impact I can have is to offer a "none-of-the-above" vote that gets taken seriously by "the powers that be".  I don't believe a write-in accomplishes that, as it gets tossed in the "non-serious votes" pile as if it were a vote for Mickey Mouse or Lizard People.  A vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein connotes a level of dissatisfaction that can be taken much more seriously.  It also offers the added benefit of contributing to getting those parties onto ballots automatically in the future.

1.  Good point. You get to make boatloads of cash for doing nothing when you get through those eight years, though. Plus the house and the plane are pretty sweet, and I've always wanted to throw out a first pitch at a baseball game.

2.  The bolded is only true if you assume others will do the same, which is my point. Almost all voting decisions, even third party ones, depend on assumptions of what other voters will do. So a vote for a third party candidate is not as effective of an anti-Trump vote as a vote for Hillary Clinton. And that's fine if people are OK with that and they think supporting a third party candidate is more important than voting to keep Trump out of office.  My only quarrel is with the people who think their third party vote is just as effective as a Trump protest vote as a vote for Clinton because "I can't control how other people vote."  That doesn't make sense to me because all of us vote in part based on how we think other people will vote. 

Although Commish and MT do make some good arguments about not having write-in options in some states and write-in options not being good choices because they don't have VP nominee and whatnot. Maybe we need a FFA ticket to write in.  Tremblay/SWC?

ETA: Tremblay wants out.  Bump SWC to the top of the ticket I guess.

 

[cobalt_27]

Just sounds like she is going to "accept" the FBI findings which she would have done anyway.

No major change in course, but I really respect her and appreciate how she handled the interview/questions (from what I saw).

 

[Phil Elliott]

No major change in course, but I really respect her and appreciate how she handled the interview/questions (from what I saw).

"I fully expect to accept the findings"...story is changing already.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So much for the Bill "pounce" on Lynch event being 'no big deal'.

It's a big deal.

 

[dparker713]

You don't think there was more information exchanged than just some family updates on the grand kids and golf? OK.

This is why we need nested quotes, because you've already forgotten or changed what you wrote.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

ETA - your reasoning is the same as those parents that claim they shouldn't have to vaccinate their kids. Their one child opting out won't effect herd immunity.  Problems arise when that mentality spreads.  

Christ almighty have you been brainwashed by the government

 

[dparker713]

This is why I understand why guys like you and Tim say they don't care about the email issue.  You don't know what's involved with these types of investigations.  I'm not talking about criminal, grand jury trials.  There are in-house steps that are followed with anyone at any point in the chain of command who has a violation.  What she did would lead to a resignation or forced retirement for anyone near her level.  Just mishandling classified material would result in a slap on the wrist for lower level types.  Loss of clearance, eligibility for promotion.  My point is if (IF) she gets away without any repercussions... it will be sad.  Again, this is my opinion.  

We don't know that she mishandled classified information.  The OIG report did not deal with any such communications.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mark Halpern reporting that Lynch is ALREADY backing down from todays possible (?) grandstand move of saying she would follow the recommendation.  She WILL reserve her right to judgement on the findings

https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin/status/748867261658636289

From a Senior DOJ Official: Attorney General Lynch reserves the right to overrule the recommendation of career prosecutors and the FBI in the Hillary Clinton probe.

WHAT A JOKE.

They are getting all twisted up.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

We don't know that she mishandled classified information.  The OIG report did not deal with any such communications.  

Having classified information on a private server is mishandling classified information.  

 

[Jayrok]

Are you sure you're not confusing military procedures with civilian procedures?  I know nothing about military procedures, but I have a little personal experience with this stuff on the federal civilian level and I've never heard of any sort of process like the one you seem to be describing.

Anyway, appreciate the response, and I understand its just your opinion. I'm not the world's foremost authority on the Clinton email scandal so if you've seen something in there that you think demands repercussions, so be it.  Just asking some questions.

She wasn't military but she worked with and supported/was supported by the DoD.  Federal employees that are in positions cleared to handle classified material  would be held under the same requirements as a soldier or sailor in the same chain of command.  I was active duty for 23 years and a GS government civilian supporting the DoD after that.  I've also been a contractor supporting the DoD.  There is no distinction between military and civilian gov't employees with regards to security clearance requirements.  A colonel, Captain, LT, sergeant, airmen, and so forth, would be held to the same standard as a GS gov't employee, whether a GS-4 or an SES in charge of high ranking military officers.  

I will say this... several years ago a security violation was handled a little differently than it is today.  Slap on the wrist was perhaps the norm in the 70/80s.  With the rise in terrorism and espionage cases (even Snowden for example) and the advent of cyber warfare and cyber crime that is prevalent today, they are cracking down on even violations at the lowest level.  

 

[Jayrok]

Having classified information on a private server is mishandling classified information.  

yes it is.  Whether she willingly did anything or not, the material was still mishandled.  

 

[ericttspikes]

Bill opted not to prosecute Reagan for Iran-Contra. Obama decides to let Bush and Cheney off the hook for war crimes they were guilty of and the Rs fight tooth and nail to prosecute Hillary for emails and Benghazi. Seems about par for the course.

 

[TobiasFunke]

yes it is.  Whether she willingly did anything or not, the material was still mishandled.  

No, it's not.  Someone could send you classified information to your gmail account or your PMs or whatever right now and make you "guilty" of having classified information on a private server without you lifting a finger.  You can't passively mishandle something.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

No, it's not.  Someone could send you classified information to your gmail account or your PMs or whatever right now and make you "guilty" of having classified information on a private server without you lifting a finger.  You can't passively mishandle something.

LOL don't be obtuse.  Someone else wasn't sending her information to a gmail account. 

 

[Henry Ford]

No, it's not.  Someone could send you classified information to your gmail account or your PMs or whatever right now and make you "guilty" of having classified information on a private server without you lifting a finger.  You can't passively mishandle something.

That's not entirely true. As SoS, she was in charge of policy.  If she directed her staff to send her information at that email address, she's responsible for mishandling it.

 

[jon_mx]

No, it's not.  Someone could send you classified information to your gmail account or your PMs or whatever right now and make you "guilty" of having classified information on a private server without you lifting a finger.  You can't passively mishandle something.

Even so, it is still mishandling if she did not report the violation immediately. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's not entirely true. As SoS, she was in charge of policy.  If she directed her staff to send her information at that email address, she's responsible for mishandling it.

Right, but that would be because of her directions to her staff, not simply because she "had classified information on a private server."

Anyway this is just semantics.  Unless there's an indictment this issue is pretty much played out. Nobody's changing anyone's mind at this point.

 

[Jayrok]

No, it's not.  Someone could send you classified information to your gmail account or your PMs or whatever right now and make you "guilty" of having classified information on a private server without you lifting a finger.  You can't passively mishandle something.

Not true.  The material was absolutely mishandled, whether by her or the person who sent it to her.  If I receive an email that has a document that is classified attached.  I can report that without opening it and I'm not at fault, but still a part of the investigation.  My computer system (phone, laptop, etc.) is still immediately disconnected from the network pending purging/sanitizing procedures.  If I open and forward the email then I've mishandled it and will be investigated.  Did HRC receive an email and report it to her infosecurity team?  Did she forward it?  Print it off?  It didn't have to be a document marked "secret" or "confidential".  A sentence in an email can be classified depending on the information.  SIPRnet computer systems can process classified material up to "secret".  Top secret material has its own platform.  And it's not a private, personal Microsoft exchange server.  

Again, if she received a message on her private server email system, that contained class material.. she should have stopped and reported the finding.  No fault there.  If she initiated an email and discussed classified information, she is guilty of mishandling such material.  Whether she willingly did it of just out of negligence, it's still an incident.  She should have used the appropriate platform for that email correspondence.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Mark Halpern reporting that Lynch is ALREADY backing down from todays possible (?) grandstand move of saying she would follow the recommendation.  She WILL reserve her right to judgement on the findings

https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin/status/748867261658636289

From a Senior DOJ Official: Attorney General Lynch reserves the right to overrule the recommendation of career prosecutors and the FBI in the Hillary Clinton probe.

WHAT A JOKE.

They are getting all twisted up.

Her reassurance that she will not overrule her investigators is significant. When the F.B.I. sought to bring felony charges against David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director, for mishandling classified information and lying about it, Mr. Holder stepped in and reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. That decision created a deep — and public — rift.

- This is a very big deal.

 

[BassNBrew]

His discription of the Gore decision was accurate, so I am not sure what aspect you are calling him uninformed about.  I had issue with his characterization of a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote, but you were not quoting that part.  

The part saying the rest of the post was BS (referring to the Gary Johnson part)

 

[Jayrok]

Right, but that would be because of her directions to her staff, not simply because she "had classified information on a private server."

Anyway this is just semantics.  Unless there's an indictment this issue is pretty much played out. Nobody's changing anyone's mind at this point.

That's where I disagree.  No indictment means she isn't accused of a criminal act such as willingly providing material to non-authorized personnel.  She's not a criminal in that case.  But she still should answer for violating regulations.  Anyone else in this situation would be disqualified for promotion to commander-in-chief.  It's amazing how she seems to be above all this.

I'm not trying to change your mind.  I know how you feel.. you know how I feel.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's where I disagree.  No indictment means she isn't accused of a criminal act such as willingly providing material to non-authorized personnel.  She's not a criminal in that case.  But she still should answer for violating regulations.  Anyone else in this situation would be disqualified for promotion to commander-in-chief.  It's amazing how she seems to be above all this.

I'm not trying to change your mind.  I know how you feel.. you know how I feel.  

What regulation did she violate?  Looking for a specific link or citation to the CFR or a State Department policy document here.

 

[Guest]

- This is a very big deal.

What's super interesting is that one would think if Clinton were out of the woods, and this was pure grandstanding, she wouldn't need to back off here.  Certainly looks like the FBI may have a meaty bone after all.  

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Mark Halpern reporting that Lynch is ALREADY backing down from todays possible (?) grandstand move of saying she would follow the recommendation.  She WILL reserve her right to judgement on the findings

https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin/status/748867261658636289

These are the contortions the Clintons make you do

 

[dparker713]

What's super interesting is that one would think if Clinton were out of the woods, and this was pure grandstanding, she wouldn't need to back off here.  Certainly looks like the FBI may have a meaty bone after all.  

How the #### do you make an inference about the FBI's case from this?