Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (12 Viewers)

[Politician Spock]

They said that there was evidence of potential violations.

You and I agree on this. Where we differ is what should be done with the evidence the FBI found. The FBI gave the opinion that she should not be prosecuted. But that is not fact. That is just their opinion. It's not their place to determine whether or not she should be prosecuted, unless they decide they want to prosecute. They obviously aren't going to, but any prosecutor could with the evidence the found. So they packaged their findings in a statement saying it would be unreasonable to prosecute so that if she is prosecuted for it, people would cry how unreasonable that is. In the end though, if judicial system found her guilty, then prosecuting her wouldn't be unreasonable. By that time however Comey would be forgotten, so he risks nothing by stating that opinion. 

 

[Boston]

Would you list the times she's displayed poor judgment in your opinion starting as far back as you can.  I'm curious what exactly you mean by this.

Running the Bimbo Squad to cover-up her Husband's BS with women than claiming she is a candidate that will help women...

 

[Politician Spock]

Name one prosecutor who would prosecute a Presidential Candiate less then 5 months until the General Election.

Trump will probably find one.

 

[dparker713]

The bolded is incorrect. It is a crime, but the FBI is using the argument that in general not every crime committed is prosecuted, and under similar circumstances other people haven't been prosecuted for this. 

You seem to be ignoring Comey's important point: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences” 

The consequences he is referring to are things like getting fired, having your career ruined, etc, etc.... at best a person who did what Hillary did would keep their job only if all access to sensitive data is stripped from them. Promoting someone who did this is insane, and I think people who want to promote her are committing a worse crime against this country than the one she committed. 

It's either her or Trump.  Protecting the country from Trump is significantly more important than keeping Hillary from classified data. 

 

[Boston]

And therefore...?  Mind carrying this through to the endpoint of your position?

She's a Democrat so it's OK...

 

[Politician Spock]

It's either her or Trump.  Protecting the country from Trump is significantly more important than keeping Hillary from classified data. 

I haven't conceded that it's one or the other. The current situation may be the best chance the country has in my lifetime of breaking free of this two party system by rejecting both this November. 

 

[cobalt_27]

It's either her or Trump.  Protecting the country from Trump is significantly more important than keeping Hillary from classified data. 

I emphatically agree with this.  I just wish the good guys didnt push all in on such a flawed person/candidate, who is the one person who could actually lose to Trump.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Point being? It doesn't change what she knows today. 

You said she may not have violated the letter of the law but she violated the "spirit of the law."  I'm saying it's hard to violate the spirit of a law that doesn't even contemplate your behavior- not just because it doesn't contemplate electronic communication but also because it doesn't contemplate that it might fall into the wrong hands via nefarious efforts of third parties to access servers rather than intentionally given to someone else or physically left behind somewhere that any schmuck could find it.  It would have been a massive stretch.

 

[Jackstraw]

Anybody mention back when the Bush white house "lost" five million emails and it was a political fart in the wind?

 

[cobalt_27]

You said she may not have violated the letter of the law but she violated the "spirit of the law."  I'm saying it's hard to violate the spirit of a law that doesn't even contemplate your behavior- not just because it doesn't contemplate electronic communication but also because it doesn't contemplate that it might fall into the wrong hands via nefarious efforts of third parties to access servers rather than intentionally given to someone else or physically left behind somewhere that any schmuck could find it.  It would have been a massive stretch.

I'm not sure what's so hard about the concept of securing sensitive data/communications, regardless of the medium.  

 

[badmojo1006]

I haven't conceded that it's one or the other. The current situation may be the best chance the country has in my lifetime of breaking free of this two party system by rejecting both this November. 

There is not a viable third party choice this cycle. I am supporting Clinton. It is an easy choice over Trump, but she is not my ideal candidate. But I agree with you that we need to break away from the 2 party system. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Anybody mention back when the Bush white house "lost" five million emails and it was a political fart in the wind?

Probably somewhere back in spring 2015, yes it was one of the first thing mentioned. I'm guessing Comey was aware of this as he plowed forward with a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and didn't see it in the same light. Maybe bring it up with him.

 

[Jayrok]

I totally disagree that this would keep her from getting a job at an agency that required a background check regarding competence and trustworthiness.

See, this is where a subtle difference in our sentences can be taken to mean different things.  I'm not talking about a background check to determine competence and trustworthiness alone.  The key words that are left out here are "for a position that is trusted to handle and process classified information."  

I believe she is trustworthy to lead an office in the government..  I believe she is competent to run an office in the government.  But I'm not talking about an office like post master general.  I'm talking about a position of authority and trusted to handle classified US information.  There is a difference and that difference is what I'm talking about. 

 

[dparker713]

For the record, I, along with most people, would have been fired from my company for doing what she did....and I don't handle the country's classified information. 

But your CEO and CFO wouldn't.

 

[Cjw_55106]

But your CEO and CFO wouldn't.

I believe they would. 

 

[Politician Spock]

But your CEO and CFO wouldn't.

They would if the board of directors found out they did it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Anybody mention back when the Bush white house "lost" five million emails and it was a political fart in the wind?

If his last name was "Clinton" he'd have been hung for it.  As with every "scandal" -- it's about nothing more than her last name.

 

[dparker713]

I think you misunderstood my meaning when I said "rigged"..  But I can see the conclusion that would naturally jump out given the subject.  But I meant it as "the way the democratic party is constructed.. or built."  They use the super delegates that launched her way past Bernie Sanders.  

That's just as much BS as what you wrote initially.  She started with a large super delegate lead over Obama in 2008, but he was a better candidate and won at the ballot box and then the super delegates switched.  If Bernie were a better candidate, he could have beaten her as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I totally disagree that this would keep her from getting a job at an agency that required a background check regarding competence and trustworthiness.

You don't think 2 IG letters, an IG report, and an FBI investigation into whether she may have conducted three felonies related to national security would result in administrative sanctions and possible future barring from federal work? Yeah?

 

[dparker713]

Poor judgment and disregard for the truth should not be disqualifying for the job as leader of the free world? Seriously wtf is wrong you?

It is.  That's why we can't elect Trump.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm not sure what's so hard about the concept of securing sensitive data/communications, regardless of the medium.  

The context was whether she violated "the spirit of the law."  Obviously there's no one right answer to what constitutes "the spirit of the law," but I find it hard to believe a law intended to punish people who take physical documents from one place to another and then share them would apply in a context that doesn't really resemble that scenario at all.  To my knowledge she didn't even send documents electronically from a secure location to an unsecure one.

I don't like what she did at all but I'm far more troubled by the possibility that she was ducking FOIA than this stuff about criminal charges under the Espionage Act.  That's always felt like a square peg-round hole deal to me.

 

[Cjw_55106]

If his last name was "Clinton" he'd have been hung for it.  As with every "scandal" -- it's about nothing more than her last name.

Yeah, poor Clintons. All these conspiracies to try and bring down these hard working folks is terrible. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If his last name was "Clinton" he'd have been hung for it.  As with every "scandal" -- it's about nothing more than her last name.

- Just so people understand: there are public records laws and there are national security records laws. The Rove thing was for the former. Those are civil laws and for the feds (as compared to many states) they are largely stingless. The latter are major federal crimes. Two totally different kettle of fish.

Hillary is/was not in trouble for her breaking the federal records laws.

 

[Politician Spock]

It is.  That's why we can't elect Trump.

I agree, which is why we need a miracle in the next four months.

What has made America great is where there is a need, people have stepped up to fill it. My hope for this country is between now and election day an option steps up to save us from Dumb & Dumber. 

 

[Slapdash]

Anybody mention back when the Bush white house "lost" five million emails and it was a political fart in the wind?

Good thing he wasn't up for re-election then

 

[dparker713]

Yup.  I'm less lenient on the carelessness issue.  But, the purpose of the server is a major concern, particularly since she obviously lied about this.  The question is why did she lie about this?  

Nearly all of her emails were made public, and in the others the FBI found no intent to mishandle classified information.  You're ascribing nefarious intent with no evidence at this point.

 

[culdeus]

Anybody mention back when the Bush white house "lost" five million emails and it was a political fart in the wind?

Surely one of those was the proof of the mobile WMD labs right?  Or the AQ link to SH?

 

[Jayrok]

That's just as much BS as what you wrote initially.  She started with a large super delegate lead over Obama in 2008, but he was a better candidate and won at the ballot box and then the super delegates switched.  If Bernie were a better candidate, he could have beaten her as well.

If Bernie were the better party candidate, he would have beaten her.  

 

[Jayrok]

It is.  That's why we can't elect Trump.

I don't disagree.  So who is going to step up and be the right person to elect?  

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Nearly all of her emails were made public, and in the others the FBI found no intent to mishandle classified information.  You're ascribing nefarious intent with no evidence at this point.

The head of the FBI said they found emails that weren't turned over and some of those had highly classified info in them 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The head of the FBI said they found emails that weren't turned over and some of those had highly classified info in them 

^^^ Basically every single factual finding re: anything and everything that Hillary stood on went against her. ^^^

 

[badmojo1006]

If Bernie were the better party candidate, he would have beaten her.  

Like this candidate?

 

[dparker713]

It's not the FBI's place to do that. The judicial system does that.

The FBI makes recommendations on whether or not to prosecute all the time.  So yes, it's very much the FBI's place to do that.

 

[bueno]

It's either her or Trump.  Protecting the country from Trump is significantly more important than keeping Hillary from classified data. 

Is protecting the country from Trump more important than keeping whoever could have hacked Hillary's emails from obtaining classified data? Arguably it depends on the hack and the data, but let's assume the worst for this hypothetical.

 

[dparker713]

You mean the full picture? No, that's true.

However IMO Hillary's search term list and methodology should absolutely come out of all this. That would help.

Eh, I just don't see the relevance at this point.  She was evasive of a FOIA request - that's pretty much every politician ever.  If there were something really damning in her non-classified emails, they'd have found more than they have at this point.

 

[cobalt_27]

Nearly all of her emails were made public, and in the others the FBI found no intent to mishandle classified information.  You're ascribing nefarious intent with no evidence at this point.

Is this accurate?  I think half were deleted.  Some recovered, but I don't think it's accurate to say nearly all her emails were made public.

I fully admit, I find most of what she has said about this matter to be non-credible.  So, while I am not inferring any specific motive(s), her behavior raises serious concerns about possible motives that are simply going to remain unanswered.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence sort of deal, I guess.  And, she hasn't exactly earned a lot of slack to trust her explanation(s).

 

[badmojo1006]

Is protecting the country from Trump more important than keeping whoever could have hacked Hillary's emails from obtaining classified data? Arguably it depends on the hack and the data, but let's assume the worst for this hypothetical.

Are you serious? I am really concerned that when Trump starts getting classified briefings that he won't start using them in his stump speeches.

 

[bueno]

Are you serious? I am really concerned that when Trump starts getting classified briefings that he won't start using them in his stump speeches.

Then, under that scenario, he should be impeached (I believe of he became President, he'd probably be impeached and convicted anyway.) But this question is about Hillary exposing classified data to hackers..

 

[Joe Summer]

bueno:

Is protecting the country from Trump more important than keeping whoever could have hacked Hillary's emails from obtaining classified data? Arguably it depends on the hack and the data, but let's assume the worst for this hypothetical.

I don't think you want us to assume the worst when it comes to what Donald Trump might do as President.

 

[Politician Spock]

The FBI makes recommendations on whether or not to prosecute all the time.  So yes, it's very much the FBI's place to do that.

So do people. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Even the FBI. 

 

[dparker713]

I don't want to rehash the statutes. I think everyone who was engaging in that discussion can see now that both sides had points and there was nothing unreasonable about either position (ie those who took the time to look at it properly). IMO of course, but I think this has been a bit of a nil-nil draw, perhaps with Hillary going through on a penalty kick.

However about this piece you mention - one thing that has occurred to me is that really when does the gross negligence application ever really come up? How could it? No one would be so dumb, so brazen to try this and then take it to this extreme. - It would take a really unique set of facts, but this case with Hillary really might just be that, an extremely unusual set of facts to which which the 793f GN provision might apply. I always thought this was reasonably a jury decision. Comey or a "reasonable" prosecutor could have said the same. In fact a roomful of "reasonable prosecutors" could easily fall 50/50 on this. IMO.

What's also funny is I don't think in all the FBI and USA press conferences I have seen locally - and between the political corruption cases and drug ring and gang war stories we have yes we have had a lot - I don't think I can ever recall an FBI agent or really even the USA stating the defendant's side of things. It's always stating why there is a prosecution and the facts and procedure be damned (per the defense) it's happening. Truly the common person does not get this kind of treatment, even the common politician.

Federal prosecutors don't get where they are by taking 50/50 cases to trial.

 

[bueno]

bueno:
 

I don't think you want us to assume the worst when it comes to what Donald Trump might do as President.

I'm assuming the worst with regard to Hillary here.

 

[dparker713]

I haven't conceded that it's one or the other. The current situation may be the best chance the country has in my lifetime of breaking free of this two party system by rejecting both this November. 

You're wrong.

 

[Politician Spock]

Federal prosecutors don't get where they are by taking 50/50 cases to trial.

They do if there's a kicker. And Trump is just the kind of person to provide one. 

 

[bueno]

Federal prosecutors don't get where they are by taking 50/50 cases to trial.

I think the odds are higher than 50/50 that Hillary is incompetent.

 

[Politician Spock]

You're wrong.

You're right. The two candidates in 2020 will probably been even worse. 

 

[dparker713]

They would if the board of directors found out they did it.

In most companies the board is controlled by the cronies of the CEO, so no they wouldn't.  

 

[badmojo1006]

Then, under that scenario, he should be impeached (I believe of he became President, he'd probably be impeached and convicted anyway.) But this question is about Hillary exposing classified data to hackers..

So you would rather elect somebody who is so unqualified that he will get Impeached and Convicted? No Thanks. And No, Clinton mishandling her email is not going to change my vote from her to Trump.

 

[badmojo1006]

I'm assuming the wort with regard to Hillary here.

You brew Beer also? I haven't done it in a long time, but I enjoyed it when I did

 

[Politician Spock]

In most companies the board is controlled by the cronies of the CEO, so no they wouldn't.  

If this is the kind of logic Hillary has to depend on, then her situation is worse than I thought.