Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

That is very selfish...

So the best interests of the nation (IMO, but that's all I've got) are selfish? OK. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Even if all of that were true a press conference or interview by Hillary on this subject now would not help her in any way. All it would do is keep the email story in the headlines- exactly what she does not want. 

Guess what: it's in the headlines.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The rolling eyes is so week...and partisan...seriously, there are legit questions about this...they are very serious for someone who maybe the next President...is it too much to have a press conference (and not a political dog and pony show) and let the general public have more insight into this...Dem or Repub, Trump or Clinton there needs to be more accountability from our leaders/candidates but unfortunately there is too much blind homerism to have it...

The public already has FAR more insight into the case than normal people who are investigated and not charged.

Its interesting watching the folks who argued that Hillary should get the same treatment as regular Americans now arguing that she deserves to be treated differently.  

 

[timschochet]

Guess what: it's in the headlines.

Not for long, hopefully. 

 

[Boston]

So the best interests of the nation (IMO, but that's all I've got) are selfish? OK. 

When you think you think you know what those best interests are and don't care how your goal is accomplished...yes, it is selfish...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The public already has FAR more insight into the case than normal people who are investigated and not charged.

Its interesting watching the folks who argued that Hillary should get the same treatment as regular Americans now arguing that she deserves to be treated differently.  

I've seen public corruption cases where the investigation materials were later made public and the US Attorney give press conferences about the investigation and prosecution. Seems commonplace to me.

 

[cobalt_27]

Even if all of that were true a press conference or interview by Hillary on this subject now would not help her in any way. All it would do is keep the email story in the headlines- exactly what she does not want. 

That's the bed she made, and she is a coward and incapable of changing the narrative.  That underscores a striking weakness.  This brand of evasiveness is symptomatic of her weakness as a leader.  

 

[saintfool]

It's misleading because Hillary's original statement on this was that *she went through the emails because the law requires that *she the public employee make decisions on what is official. But then she claimed that she *delegated that duty out, which according to her originally was not ok. The FACT that public records were destroyed shows in and of itself that not only was the method insufficient it may well have been intended to destroy official records.

I haven't been arguing for prosecution of her congressional testimony but I think this is an important point.




1

i realize that Hillary invites that kind of deep suspicion because she's, well, Hillary. That said, that's reading way too much and leap too far for me. This kind of conspiracy hoopla is similar to what Dems directed to the GWB administration over millions of lost emails and Rove emails. it's getting traction because there is a ceaseless tide of investigation, most of which is partisan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not for long, hopefully. 

This was said March 2015, June, October, etc. the problem with Hillary is that instead of copping to what she did and showing real contrition, she instead runs, hides and lies. She's doing it again. Next up is a deposition and the release of her deleted emails.

 

[Boston]

The public already has FAR more insight into the case than normal people who are investigated and not charged.

Its interesting watching the folks who argued that Hillary should get the same treatment as regular Americans now arguing that she deserves to be treated differently.  

Makes no sense...regular Americans are not running for President...if she was a regular American I would agree she would not need to take questions on this...but she is not...she is potentially the next President of the United States who should be held to a higher standard because of that...answering questions for the public about a serious situation should not be too much to ask... 

 

[cobalt_27]

Guess what: it's in the headlines.

And it will remain so.  Funny how Hillary supporters take her cue and bury their heads in the sand when #### hits the fan.  It's as though they think it will all just magically go away.  What's clear is Tim thinks it's a better political move to let everyone talk about this and guide the narrative, as opposed to having her come out forcefully and passionately make the case for herself.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Next up is a deposition and the release of her deleted emails.

There's always going to be a "Next up" though. It can always go on, unending hearings, conferences, etc. Honestly, what is a satisfactory outcome?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i realize that Hillary invites that kind of deep suspicion because she's, well, Hillary. That said, that's reading way too much and leap too far for me. This kind of conspiracy hoopla is similar to what Dems directed to the GWB administration over millions of lost emails and Rove emails. it's getting traction because there is a ceaseless tide of investigation, most of which is partisan.

You're talking about something else now, I  was just talking about whether Hillary had been misleading on her destruction of data.

Yeah the GOP will very likely leapfrog this into what you say. It's a comedy on both sides.

 

[cobalt_27]

Not for long, hopefully. 

I mean, you have to be completely oblivious to have even a remote expectation that this is just going to go away.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's always going to be a "Next up" though. It can always go on, unending hearings, conferences, etc. Honestly, what is a satisfactory outcome?

I view the political theatre as separate from the legal inquiry. Hillary's in trouble for the FBI investigation and the Foia lawsuits. That's on her. It's likely the GOP which will create sympathy for her with the hearings and what not. I'm guessing Comey comes back with another decision to not prosecute on the perjury and the GOP will have handed Hillary another talking point.

eta - meanwhile it's we the public who are stuck in this dysfunctionalism, which we will have for 4-8 years, and anyone looking could have seen this coming before she even announced.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I mean, you have to be completely oblivious to have even a remote expectation that this is just going to go away.  

It's not gonna disappear completely, but it will fade into the background and be superseded by other events.  The damage has been done.  At this point anyone who was inclined to stop supporting her or oppose her because of the email scandal has done so. So it should get better from there.  Might not show up immediately in the polls, or it might show up with a quick bounce followed by a dip due to the Trump veep pick and the RNC, but then she'll do the same thing the following week and I bet by early August the polls will go back to showing a consistent 4-5 point lead, which is hopefully plenty.  That's around what Obama led by in the polling averages for most of the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

 

[Guest]

Comey gave an unprecedented public briefing on his decision not to indict.  Then he agreed to what amounted to a 5 hour public dissection of the case and evidence.  NONE of this happens in normal circumstances.  

But it's still not enough for you guys. Again, you're essentially proving her point. 

In talking about the Herculean efforts required to discover that there was a problem to begin with -- despite Hillary's efforts to bury it.  I know you don't find this disturbing.  Many do.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And it will remain so.  Funny how Hillary supporters take her cue and bury their heads in the sand when #### hits the fan.  It's as though they think it will all just magically go away.  What's clear is Tim thinks it's a better political move to let everyone talk about this and guide the narrative, as opposed to having her come out forcefully and passionately make the case for herself.

I know. I wanted to make that point to Tommy.

It's also amusing that people who assiduously avoid learning or understanding the facts are constantly amazed when something new develops. Like, 'where did this come from all of a sudden?' after 'well, it's all over now!'

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver shows Trump gaining but still good for Hillary:

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 2h2 hours ago

Trump continues to gain in our forecast, as state & national polls trend against Clinton. Now a 34% chance to win.

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 2h2 hours ago


Betting markets put Trump's chances at more like 25%. So our model is pro-Trump, relative to the conventional wisdom!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

She said "they went through every single email." Well, that's not exactly true, according to Comey. They didn't read every single email. But on the other hand it's not untrue either because apparently it they used some sort of system to scan the emails and every email was included in that scan. So while its kind of a misleading statement (maybe) it's hardly a lie.

See, I don't think it is misleading at all. No reasonable person is going to expect attorneys to review 62,000+ emails. It's also not a distortion of the truth to say that all the all emails were searched and/or reviewed. It's a practical, working definition of the process and parsing words to suggest perjury is fairly ridiculous. 

Perhaps no reasonable person would think that attorneys reviewed all the emails before Clinton said that they did. After she said they did, a reasonable person might have taken her at her word.

Somebody posted the transcript a page or two back. She didn't simply say, "My attorneys went through all the emails." It was more like "My attorneys used broad search terms, and in addition they went through all the emails."  (My paraphrase from memory.) In context, it sure sounds like she's saying that they read the emails as opposed to only using search terms.

I don't see a crime here, but it does look kind of bad. The two most obvious possibilities are:

(1) Hillary knowingly gave classified information to her attorneys when they didn't have the appropriate clearance, or

(2) Hillary did not give them access to the text of the emails, but nonetheless testified that they'd read them with their own eyes.

If the first possibility is true, I doubt it would be a crime because, once again, she probably lacked criminal intent. If she gave her attorneys access to the text of the emails, it wouldn't have been for the purpose of harming the country or anything like that -- it would have been to facilitate effective representation in turning over info to the FBI. Careless, but not treacherous or otherwise criminal.

In any case, her lawyers have apparently told the FBI that they did not read through the emails themselves, so that leaves the second possibility -- which suggests possible perjury (although one could argue that "went through all the emails," or whatever her exact words were, were too ambiguous to support a charge of perjury).

There is a third possibility that rescues her somewhat:

(3) She gave her emails to the lawyers, assumed that her lawyers would read through them, but they didn't in fact read through them. This would be non-criminal for the same reason as (1); and it would also be non-perjury because her statement to Congress, while false, would not have been knowingly false.

While I wouldn't expect any of those possibilities to result in criminal charges, none of them really look all that great.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The 4 ways that the email story will continue to haunt Hillary.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Sorry but so what? She's a public servant asking for the highest job in the land. Make her jump on a trampoline and sing Dixie. They all should. A presidential nominee was under criminal investigation for a year, seems worth exploring.

Isn't that what the investigation is for????

 

[dparker713]

I have no idea why Bernie isn't running 3rd party.  I honestly think he could win as an Independent.

You mean the guy that lost his own primaries pretty substantially?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Isn't that what the investigation is for????

The investigation itself is public. I said this earlier, most prominent public corruption investigations I've seen here have had US Attorney press conferences and news reports on the details and materials found in the investigation. There must have been 20 prominent public officials investigated here in the last 10 years. This is totally normal. Public acts should be public information, the only thing I would leave out from public disclosure is classified information. And yes I think public officials should explain themselves to the public.

 

[saintfool]

Perhaps no reasonable person would think that attorneys reviewed all the emails before Clinton said that they did. After she said they did, a reasonable person might have taken her at her word.

Somebody posted the transcript a page or two back. She didn't simply say, "My attorneys went through all the emails." It was more like "My attorneys used broad search terms, and in addition they went through all the emails."  (My paraphrase from memory.) In context, it sure sounds like she's saying that they read the emails as opposed to only using search terms.

I don't see a crime here, but it does look kind of bad. The two most obvious possibilities are:

(1) Hillary knowingly gave classified information to her attorneys when they didn't have the appropriate clearance, or

(2) Hillary did not give them access to the text of the emails, but nonetheless testified that they'd read them with their own eyes.

If the first possibility is true, I doubt it be a crime because, once again, she probably lacked criminal intent. If she gave her attorneys access to the text of the emails, it wouldn't have been for the purpose of harming the country or anything like that -- it would have been to facilitate effective representation in turning over info to the FBI. Careless, but not treacherous or otherwise criminal.

In any case, her lawyers have apparently told the FBI that they did not read through the emails themselves, so that leaves the second possibility -- which suggests possible perjury (although one could argue that "went through all the emails," or whatever her exact words were, were too ambiguous to support a charge of perjury).

There is a third possibility that rescues her somewhat:

(3) She gave her emails to the lawyers, assumed that her lawyers would read through them, but they didn't in fact read through them. This would be non-criminal for the same reason as (1); and it would also be non-perjury because her statement to Congress, while false, would not have been knowingly false.

While I wouldn't expect any of those possibilities to result in criminal charges, none of them really look all that great.




 

I think a likely scenario is that she asked her attorneys to "review" the emails. They used broad search terms - perhaps with terms she provided even; maybe or maybe not? - and they eyeballed only emails that fit the search criteria. So while she gave them access to "classified materials" then it was in a controlled environment. It's not grand obfuscation or obstruction on her part but simply intrepid convenience (ie, laziness) that was at play here. Again, I think this is all pretty reasonable behavior when portrayed as such but then again we're not in reasonable times. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think a likely scenario is that she asked her attorneys to "review" the emails. They used broad search terms - perhaps with terms she provided even; maybe or maybe not? - and they eyeballed only emails that fit the search criteria. So while she gave them access to "classified materials" then it was in a controlled environment. It's not grand obfuscation or obstruction on her part but simply intrepid convenience (ie, laziness) that was at play here. Again, I think this is all pretty reasonable behavior when portrayed as such but then again we're not in reasonable times. 

It's either one of two things then - either they deleted material without looking at it or they looked at material they shouldn't have.

eta - btw it's Hillary's *claim that the terms are broad. They clearly weren't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In a previous post (I'm not sure in which thread), I described Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, as basically a male version of Orly Taitz. (Remember her? She's the one who kept filing lawsuits alleging that Obama was ineligible to be President on account of being born in Kenya.)

Here's an example of Klayman's idiocy. He just filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of "Jews and Caucasians" against "Louis Farrakhan, President Barack Hussein Obama, Reverend Al Sharpton, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and leaders of the so called 'Black Lives Matter' movement." He's asking for "damages and equitable relief arising out of the threats, severe bodily injury and/or deaths, future deaths, emotional harm, and imminent fears of death and/or serious bodily harm" because the Defendants "have repeatedly incited their supporters and others to engage in threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily injury or death upon police officers, Jews, and Caucasians."

Here is the complaint, and here is Klayman's press release.

While Klayman is no longer with Judicial Watch, it's hard for them to get his stink off of them -- especially because they've spent most of their history pursuing (and suing over) Vince Foster conspiracy theories and the like.

That certainly doesn't mean they're wrong to file FOIA requests regarding Hillary's emails. But I think Tim's natural distaste for and suspicion of them is understandable.

 

[bueno]

I don't want her to be the president, but I think she'd be fun to hang around with... as long as her dip#### husband isn't around.  

It would be like drinking with a mummy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In a previous post (I'm not sure in which thread), I described Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, as basically a male version of Orly Taitz. (Remember her? She's the one who kept filing lawsuits alleging that Obama was ineligible to be President on account of being born in Kenya.)

Here's an example of Klayman's idiocy. He just filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of "Jews and Caucasians" against "Louis Farrakhan, President Barack Hussein Obama, Reverend Al Sharpton, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and leaders of the so called 'Black Lives Matter.'" He's asking for "damages and equitable relief arising out of the threats, severe bodily injury and/or deaths, future deaths, emotional harm, and imminent fears of death and/or serious bodily harm" because the Defendants "have repeatedly incited their supporters and others to engage in threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily injury or death upon police officers, Jews, and Caucasians."

Here is the complaint, and here is Klayman's press release.

While Klayman is no longer with Judicial Watch, it's hard for them to get his stink off of them -- especially because they've spent most of their history pursuing (and suing over) Vince Foster conspiracy theories and the like.

That certainly doesn't mean they're wrong to file FOIA requests regarding Hillary's emails. But I think Tim's natural distaste for and suspicion of them is understandable.

I'll give you an example of the difference between Klayman and the current JW. Klayman filed a civil Rico suit against Hillary and the Foundation. I don't know what's happened with that case but that I would say is harassing and without basis.

JW is one of 50 federal Foia cases, personally I think their demands in this instance are good, fair and in the public interest. Vice News also has a parallel suit seeking very similar aims yet that is never raised. It's discovery on these points has been put off somewhat because the JW discovery is ongoing, but they are the ones who are seeking the deleted emails and that also is very important. As a matter of fact it's the Vice case that will likely have the next shoe drop, the memoranda filed by the FBI.

https://news.vice.com/article/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-to-decide-whether-to-release-memos

 

[saintfool]

It's either one if two things then - either they deleted material without looking at it or they looked at material they shouldn't have.

I took Comey's comment about how using her attorneys to provide and prepare her defense "lacked criminal intent" as pretty clear and obvious for anyone other than Hillary. time and time again i have heard that what she did was "dumb", "bungled" or "sloppy" and that you can't prosecute for that. she and/or her team used bad judgment but then she's also following precedent in a way. it's like a game of "telephone" or gossip in that they adapted an existing or known practice to fit their needs. those weren't any more safe, secure or right but she's starting from a fundamentally flawed premise for her choices. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I took Comey's comment about how using her attorneys to provide and prepare her defense "lacked criminal intent" as pretty clear and obvious for anyone other than Hillary. time and time again i have heard that what she did was "dumb", "bungled" or "sloppy" and that you can't prosecute for that. she and/or her team used bad judgment but then she's also following precedent in a way. it's like a game of "telephone" or gossip in that they adapted an existing or known practice to fit their needs. those weren't any more safe, secure or right but she's starting from a fundamentally flawed premise for her choices. 

Precedent? What public employees have used private attorneys to identify their public records?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

She took a laundered bribe on Bill's behalf and if discovered earlier she and Bubba would have been exposed as a couple of down home hucksters and we'd have a different history.  

But we don't.

I'm mostly making peace with it, but Hillary is a warts-and-all candidate who has always been ethically challenged -- and has always expanded her tactics to precisely that which she believes she can get away with, and often a tick or two more.  In 1978, that was taking a laundered bribe and sitting on any board that would have her because of her husband's political position.  

You can hide from that reality, but it's who she is and why she gets so much flack.

I only mentioned the Trump U thing because, as you mentioned, I think the ethics angle is push. Not "trying to hide" from anything. 

You mentioned a laundered bribe can you share a link to this? If it is a fact and not innuendo why weren't charges brought? Again, I am not trying to hide her record or defend her. Only trying to educate myself. 

 

[saintfool]

Precedent? What public employees have used private attorneys to identify their public records?

Precedent of other SoS using private servers. 

Perhaps her intent with her attorneys is to appear above board here. Also, she's no longer a public employee and remains a private citizen at the moment. She's entitled to use her own  attorneys to handle a legal matter, especially one that involves personal emails and not just "public records".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Precedent of other SoS using private servers. 

Perhaps her intent with her attorneys is to appear above board here. Also, she's no longer a public employee and remains a private citizen at the moment. She's entitled to use her own  attorneys to handle a legal matter, especially one that involves personal emails and not just "public records".

No other Sos ever had a private server.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Perhaps her intent with her attorneys is to appear above board here. Also, she's no longer a public employee and remains a private citizen at the moment. She's entitled to use her own  attorneys to handle a legal matter, especially one that involves personal emails and not just "public records".

I'm going to go back to your original point and agree that proving perjury is pretty difficult here, I'm just talking real life. Real life is the search terms list would tell us if Hillary was making a good faith effort. That's the issue before the federal court right now, and frankly I say let her be deposed on this and hopefully the search term list come to light. But we already know that "thousands" of public records were deleted, per Comey.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I think private servers were all the rage back in Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen's day.

 

[dparker713]

Roger Clemens was brought all the way to trial for lying to Congress IIRC. He won of course but the point is just like anything with the FBI if they want to prosecute you they do, if they don't - and Hillary's not the only person I've seen protected - they don't. 

Hillary wasn't protected, she was treated the same as others.  Clemens was the one singled out.  It was a waste of taxpayer money and a stupid prosecution - just like the Bonds case.  Someone at Justice wanted to prosecute a high profile case to further their career.  Instead, they embarrassed themselves.    

 

[saintfool]

I'm going to go back to your original point and agree that proving perjury is pretty difficult here, I'm just talking real life. Real life is the search terms list would tell us if Hillary was making a good faith effort. That's the issue before the federal court right now, and frankly I say let he rbe deposed on this and hopefully the search term list come to light. But we already know that "thousands" of public records were deleted, per Comey.




 

I think it's reasonable for her to remove/delete them if, as she said, they were strictly personal. The FBI recovered them anyway and will hand them over to State now, right? I think if the FBI found anything in them then we'd probably know by now.

 

[nittanylion]

Know what would be in the Nation's best interest? Taking  politics out of government, that's what.

 

[dparker713]

He also said her attorneys DID NOT review the majority of her emails.  In sworn testimony, Hillary said they reviewed ALL of it.  Perjury.  

It's a rock and hard place for her.  Did you allow access to classified data to those without clearance?  (Felony under 793(f))  Or did you perjur yourself?

Being mistaken and telling a falsehood is not perjury.  HTH.

 

[dparker713]

So when she said her attorneys reviewed all of her work related emails, she told the truth?

Prove, without getting the chance to ask her, that she deliberately lied.  That she knew the truth and said something else.  Also, you don't get to look at her correspondence with her attorney's - that's privileged.

 

[dparker713]

It's not about what's for her benefit.

What benefits her election chances benefits the country right now.  Get your pound of flesh in December.

 

[dparker713]

It's misleading because Hillary's original statement on this was that *she went through the emails because the law requires that *she the public employee make decisions on what is official. But then she claimed that she *delegated that duty out, which according to her originally was not ok. The FACT that public records were destroyed shows in and of itself that not only was the method insufficient it may well have been intended to destroy official records.

I haven't been arguing for prosecution of her congressional testimony but I think this is an important point.

How is anything related to FOIA important?  There's no consequences to violating the law for any public official.  

 

[dparker713]

That's the bed she made, and she is a coward and incapable of changing the narrative.  That underscores a striking weakness.  This brand of evasiveness is symptomatic of her weakness as a leader.  

She could resurrect Jesus and the narrative in this thread wouldn't change.  Of course, this thread is hardly indicative of the greater conversation in and around the country.  

 

[shader]

She could personally empty your bank account, start a war and bomb 1 million children and the narrative in this thread wouldn't change.  Of course, this thread is hardly indicative of the greater conversation in and around the country.  

fixed it

 

[Slapdash]

Not for long, hopefully. 

This was said March 2015, June, October, etc. the problem with Hillary is that instead of copping to what she did and showing real contrition, she instead runs, hides and lies. She's doing it again. Next up is a deposition and the release of her deleted emails.

Even I am impressed by her stunning lack of political ability on this item.

 

[bueno]

She could resurrect Jesus and the narrative in this thread wouldn't change.  Of course, this thread is hardly indicative of the greater conversation in and around the country.  

I'd be pissed if she did that - she already thinks she's God.

 

[dparker713]

fixed it

If by fixed you mean you proved my point, sure.  The thread would still be focused on her emails and conspiracies surrounding the investigation.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think private servers were all the rage back in Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen's day.

Aka "The Man".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary wasn't protected, she was treated the same as others.  Clemens was the one singled out.  It was a waste of taxpayer money and a stupid prosecution - just like the Bonds case.  Someone at Justice wanted to prosecute a high profile case to further their career.  Instead, they embarrassed themselves.    

I wouldn't say she wasn't protected, I was trying to say she wasn't the only politician protected. There have been situations that politicians have not been prosecuted even though they could have been. That's not a conspiracy, that's just politics.