Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (10 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

And the benefit here, is...

In which case? Fernando? That's a mystery to me as well, but then so is what would be a 'normal' reason for him wanting to be on the board.

Here's the board. - You tell me why does a securities broker and political bundler want to be on this?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Networking IMO, but obviously just a guess.  Even if that board had more real power it's hard to see the heavyweights on it listening to someone like him.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Networking IMO, but obviously just a guess.  Even if that board had more real power it's hard to see the heavyweights on it listening to someone like him.

They would not listen to him, that's not the point. My guess is the point is he would gain insights from them.

 

[shadrap]

An opinion:

http://www.richardcyoung.com/politics/election-2016/hillarys-hot-air-empty-promises/

 

[TobiasFunke]

An opinion:

http://www.richardcyoung.com/politics/election-2016/hillarys-hot-air-empty-promises/

 

Debbie Young

Debbie, editor-in-chief of Richardcyoung.com, has been associate editor of **** Young’s investment strategy reports for over three decades. When not in Key West, Debbie spends her time traveling the country on her 2011 H-D Heritage Classic, cooking on her AGA Cooker, and practicing yoga.

 
This is a real game-changer, guys.  Expect the election odds to shift dramatically once this hits the airwaves.
 
Unless the lamestream media buries it, I guess  Which they probably will, because they always bury blog entries of associate editors of investment strategy reports/yoga enthusiasts.  So biased.

 

[shadrap]

 

 
This is a real game-changer, guys.  Expect the election odds to shift dramatically once this hits the airwaves.
 
Unless the lamestream media buries it, I guess  Which they probably will, because they always bury blog entries of associate editors of investment strategy reports/yoga enthusiasts.  So biased.

of course it's biased.

 

[msommer]

So Hillary appoints some unqualified Clinton Foundation donor to the International Security Advisory Board and it elicits a collective yawn because: Trump.

Awesome.

I think we discussed it in this thread a few months ago

 

[msommer]

of course it's biased.

I wonder at your heritage. If indeed Irish then you have chosen your screen name well

 

[Sand]

Looks like the "Clinton Defense" is catching on. And the defense has a very valid point here.

Citing Clinton, sailor seeks leniency in submarine photos case

A Navy sailor facing the possibility of years in prison for taking a handful of classified photos inside a nuclear submarine is making a bid for leniency by citing the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over classified information authorities say was found in her private email account.

Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier, 29, is set to be sentenced Friday on a single felony charge of retaining national defense information without permission. In May, Saucier pleaded guilty in federal court in Bridgeport, Conn., admitting that while working on the U.S.S. Alexandria in 2009 he took and kept six photos showing parts of the sub's propulsion system he knew to be classified.
The defense and prosecutors agree that sentencing guidelines in the case call for a prison term of 63 to 78 months, but defense attorney Derrick Hogan cited the treatment of Clinton as he argued in a filing last week that Saucier should get probation instead.

"Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hilary [sic] Clinton...has come under scrutiny for engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier," Hogan wrote. He noted that FBI Director James Comey said 110 emails in 52 email chains in Clinton's account contained information deemed classified at the time, including eight chains with "top secret" information and 36 with "secret" information.

"In our case, Mr. Saucier possessed six (6) photographs classified as 'confidential/restricted,' far less than Clinton's 110 emails," Hogan wrote. "It will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid."

 

[Slapdash]

So Hillary appoints some unqualified Clinton Foundation donor to the International Security Advisory Board and it elicits a collective yawn because: Trump.

Awesome.

BAU for the corrupt establishment of this country.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Looks like the "Clinton Defense" is catching on. And the defense has a very valid point here.

No, it doesn't.  The statute in question was drafted with this exact behavior (intentionally removing information important to the national defense from a secured location) in mind.  To get Clinton's email server stuff to fit it was shoehorning at best.  For further discussion, see like half of the 1100+ pages of this thread.  Or keep -ing it, I guess

 

[The Commish]

Sailor shouldn't have admitted he knew that sort of information was classified....he'd be fine then, right?

NOTE:  I know NOTHING about the sailor and in a bit of a mood this AM.  I know exactly what Sand and TF posted and that's it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I can't believe Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death for passing along information to the Soviet Union about the atom bomb and Hillary Clinton didn't even get charged for doing something completely different!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I can't believe Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death for passing along information to the Soviet Union about the atom bomb and Hillary Clinton didn't even get charged for doing something completely different!

I think this goes in the Manafort thread.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I can't believe Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were sentenced to death for passing along information to the Soviet Union about the atom bomb and Hillary Clinton didn't even get charged for doing something completely different!

Really disingenuous of us to execute spies imo....

 

[Joe Summer]

Sailor shouldn't have admitted he knew that sort of information was classified....he'd be fine then, right?

NOTE: I know NOTHING about the sailor and in a bit of a mood this AM. I know exactly what Sand and TF posted and that's it.

I don't know if the sailor would be "fine", but I think it's safe to say that his prison sentence is directly tied to his confession.

It's difficult to find an appropriate comparison to Hillary because Hillary has been able to maintain an element of plausible deniability (i.e., "I thought it was secure" and "I thought it was all non-classified"), whereas other cases fail to match those elements.

 

[Rove!]

When you donate your "charitable" contributions to your phony family charity as a tax deduction, that's basically fraud.  It continues to boggle the mind how outrageously and overtly corrupt this woman is...

 

[Rove!]

I don't know if the sailor would be "fine", but I think it's safe to say that his prison sentence is directly tied to his confession.

It's difficult to find an appropriate comparison to Hillary because Hillary has been able to maintain an element of plausible deniability (i.e., "I thought it was secure" and "I thought it was all non-classified"), whereas other cases fail to match those elements.

The FBI didn't even record her interview to aid in the plausible deniability area.  When has the FBI ever not recorded a statement/deposition for the subject of an FBI investigation?

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't know if the sailor would be "fine", but I think it's safe to say that his prison sentence is directly tied to his confession.

It's difficult to find an appropriate comparison to Hillary because Hillary has been able to maintain an element of plausible deniability (i.e., "I thought it was secure" and "I thought it was all non-classified"), whereas other cases fail to match those elements.

Her plausible deniability is a big reason she should not be president. Do we really want a president who makes excuses like "I thought it was secure" and "I thought it was all non-classified"? 

 

[The Commish]

Sailor shouldn't have admitted he knew that sort of information was classified....he'd be fine then, right?

NOTE: I know NOTHING about the sailor and in a bit of a mood this AM. I know exactly what Sand and TF posted and that's it.

I don't know if the sailor would be "fine", but I think it's safe to say that his prison sentence is directly tied to his confession.

It's difficult to find an appropriate comparison to Hillary because Hillary has been able to maintain an element of plausible deniability (i.e., "I thought it was secure" and "I thought it was all non-classified"), whereas other cases fail to match those elements.

"plausible deniability" <> "ignorance"

For her to get to plausible deniability, it seems that she'd have to be able to convince us she wasn't the one doing the actual corresponding.  There's a difference between "I didn't know the emails being sent were classified" and "I didn't know the emails I was sending were classified".

And Comey went out of his way to make the point that this "recommendation" by his office wasn't a defense for others...which is problematic to some of us.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign reportedly made some edits to the campus sexual assault page on its website shortly after a viral tweet from Juanita Broaddrick, Buzzfeed News reported.

The Democratic nominee's campaign deleted the line, "You have the right to be believed," from the page on its site.
The website originally read: "I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we're with you," quoting Clinton.

The last part of the quote has since been removed.

Second worst candidate in my lifetime.

 

[The Commish]

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign reportedly made some edits to the campus sexual assault page on its website shortly after a viral tweet from Juanita Broaddrick, Buzzfeed News reported.

The Democratic nominee's campaign deleted the line, "You have the right to be believed," from the page on its site.
The website originally read: "I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we're with you," quoting Clinton.

The last part of the quote has since been removed.

Second worst candidate in my lifetime.

She's not even pretending anymore.

• Every student should have the option to graduate from a public college or university in their state without taking on any student debt. By 2021, families with income up to $125,000 will pay no tuition at in-state four-year public colleges and universities. And from the beginning, every student from a family making $85,000 a year or less will be able to go to an in-state four-year public college or university without paying tuition.

  "Every" or those "up to" Hillary?  I've been checking in on her site periodically to watch it's metamorphosis.  She's not even trying at this point.  
  

 

[cstu]

When you donate your "charitable" contributions to your phony family charity as a tax deduction, that's basically fraud.  It continues to boggle the mind how outrageously and overtly corrupt this woman is...

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

A Rating. I'd like to know more about Trump's charitable giving, for comparison.

 

[The Commish]

A Rating. I'd like to know more about Trump's charitable giving, for comparison.

why?

 

[Sand]

No, it doesn't.  The statute in question was drafted with this exact behavior (intentionally removing information important to the national defense from a secured location) in mind.  To get Clinton's email server stuff to fit it was shoehorning at best.  For further discussion, see like half of the 1100+ pages of this thread.  Or keep -ing it, I guess

Shocking you'd willfully ignore the parallels here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign reportedly made some edits to the campus sexual assault page on its website shortly after a viral tweet from Juanita Broaddrick, Buzzfeed News reported.

The Democratic nominee's campaign deleted the line, "You have the right to be believed," from the page on its site.
The website originally read: "I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we're with you," quoting Clinton.

The last part of the quote has since been removed.

Second worst candidate in my lifetime.

C'mon, really? So awful.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

why?

It's a pretty standard release for all presidential candidates, and it helps voters to gain a sense of their philanthropy, and this has taken place for as long as I recall. It is a comparison point, as I already noted. That's why, if it helps.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am not voting for Trump - but it has nothing to do with his not releasing his tax returns.    Honestly, I don't care about tax returns.  Unless someone was cheating on their returns

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

A listing of charitable contributions would easily suffice. 

 

[Apple Jack]

Yeah, why are you all so nosy? The man has earned the benefit of the doubt when making declarations about himself. Just let him be!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

As a matter of principle, yeah maybe Trump should release his tax returns.  Or maybe we should reconsider whether this should be a standard de facto requirement for presidential candidates.  I'm conflicted on this.

Realistically though, who really cares right now?  Is there actually a single person on this planet who would vote for Trump if and only if he put his tax returns out there?  The guy has disqualified himself for office scores of times over.  (Note: "scores of times" is actually not an exaggeration, as much as it might read like one).  Why get hung up on stuff like this when we can focus instead on something like his apparent fixation on blowing up the world?  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

As a matter of principle, yeah maybe Trump should release his tax returns.  Or maybe we should reconsider whether this should be a standard de facto requirement for presidential candidates.  I'm conflicted on this.

Realistically though, who really cares right now?  Is there actually a single person on this planet who would vote for Trump if and only if he put his tax returns out there?  The guy has disqualified himself for office scores of times over.  (Note: "scores of times" is actually not an exaggeration, as much as it might read like one).  Why get hung up on stuff like this when we can focus instead on something like his apparent fixation on blowing up the world?  

So Clinton has to endure accusations of her charitable contributions all being corrupt, but people asking about Trump's charitable contributions just need get over it because he's a dope? Notice, not tax returns. Charitable contributions. Something every recent candidate has released, not upon request either, they released them on their own. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So Clinton has to endure accusations of her charitable contributions all being corrupt, but people asking about Trump's charitable contributions just need get over it because he's a dope? Notice, not tax returns. Charitable contributions. Something every recent candidate has released, not upon request either, they released them on their own. 

I'm just saying this is small potatoes when it comes to What Is Wrong With Donald Trump.  He's much more terrible on more serious dimensions than this.  

 

[The Commish]

It's a pretty standard release for all presidential candidates, and it helps voters to gain a sense of their philanthropy, and this has taken place for as long as I recall. It is a comparison point, as I already noted. That's why, if it helps.

Fair enough...the bar with Trump is set so low, I see virtually no value, but if it helps you, rock on   

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

True, there are easily more serious matters, but it is highly disingenuous that a major criticism of Clinton is the foundation, and at the very same time Trump's charitable contributions "don't matter". 

 

[The Commish]

True, there are easily more serious matters, but it is highly disingenuous that a major criticism of Clinton is the foundation, and at the very same time Trump's charitable contributions "don't matter". 

FWIW....I don't think the foundation is in question is it?  I think it's the willful blurring of the lines between political careers and the running of the foundation that are typically questioned.  For example, I think the foundation does wonderful work, but I also believe it's absolutely unforgivable that they take money from individuals/countries who openly support the sort of treatment against children and women that the foundation itself is battling.  Some are of the "by any means necessary", but I just can't go there.  I can't help but wonder what else is going on there given those two actions that should be in direct conflict with one another.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

True, there are easily more serious matters, but it is highly disingenuous that a major criticism of Clinton is the foundation, and at the very same time Trump's charitable contributions "don't matter". 

It's funny to me how Trump matches the Clintons one for one on issues or flaws like this.

However with the Foundation they actually merge. IIRC Trump's given more to the Clinton Foundation than his own. Why in the world would a notorious skinflint like Trump give $100,000-$250,000 to the Clinton Foundation? Any ideas?

Link.

 

[Guest]

So Clinton has to endure accusations of her charitable contributions all being corrupt, but people asking about Trump's charitable contributions just need get over it because he's a dope? Notice, not tax returns. Charitable contributions. Something every recent candidate has released, not upon request either, they released them on their own. 

Please stop measuring against Trump.  Measure against decent principles and ideals.

 

[Gopher State]

I hope everyone saw the great national coverage of Biden campaigning for Hillary in his home state today.  Not only will Hillary win by a landslide, but the DFL will crush the GOP in senate, gov, other races.  Feel good about the direction of the USA!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I hope everyone saw the great national coverage of Biden campaigning for Hillary in his home state today.  Not only will Hillary win by a landslide, but the DFL will crush the GOP in senate, gov, other races.  Feel good about the direction of the USA!

President Biden would have been great. He had the best speech at the convention and just watching him tonight just reminded me of that.

 

[Gopher State]

President Biden would have been great. He had the best speech at the convention and just watching him tonight just reminded me of that.

Agree, Biden is a class act

 

[Guest]

Wasn't Biden why?  Oh, that's right -- it was Hillary's turn.

Maybe 5% of the general population wanted it.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Amigo you lost on the content issue, you won on the intent issue. The baby's been split, and you can't glue it back together. Bring it up with the Director. 

You mean on the content where you, among many others claimed since at least Jaunary that "everyone must agree" that there was no explaining away 2000+ emails yet I over and over assert that what was marked as classified for FOIA request and was inappropriately communicated in email were two different things.  You know all the times that you argued that the judgment of a FOIA clerk superseded that of the Secretary pf State?  Yep that was a win for the "everyone must agree" crowd and lost for me.   

You mean where I was stating stuff that had too be dismissed as wrong because it "wasn't being reported anywhere" that only information that originated outside of State would be relevant because information inside of State's status  was completely at Hillary's discretion?  Another lose for me!

Maybe you mean where I stated that ultimately the question for "mishandling" seems to be whether or not there is an email or emails which contained information that  "anyone trained in handling classified information" should have recognized as classified.  That remains an open question....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You are all over the place here, and I'm not sure I could follow it if I hadn't had two drinks and am ready to crash.

It seems to me you want to take Comey's conclusion that HIllary is pregnant and say "yes, but she's only a little bit pregnant and that's not as bad as being entirely pregnant".

Honestly I don't care to get a debate of degrees. As a country we are about to promote a person who in their last job was more likely to have earned a demotion than a promotion. It's the country that's insane. Hillary is just being Hillary.

I'm addressing exactly one question-

 Were there e-mails that Hillary should have recognized as containing classified information such that she would have, or should have known her e-mail system contained classified information?  

The discussion starts with Comey asserting that the answer was "Yes" because three e-mails which contained markings.   But this immediately fell apart as a) the markings were not proper markings for classified material and b) the information in question apparently wasn't classified.  And since it fell apart immediately Comey "rolled back" this statement when he appeared before Congress.  But not until this "damning" "bull" had caused Hillary some harm and thus upset Bill Clinton.  In any case the first piece of evidence being "bull" falls short.

The discussion then moves to the 110 emails and 52 chains (though we should add in the 3 recovered emails) that contained information that some agency other than State had marked as classified by the time the emails were sent.   So yes there was classified information  And yes it was "extremely careless" for these discussion to be held out in the open on non secured email.  . So since that information is classified whether or not it is properly marked (you know the NDA which has been turned into a magical  "go directly to jail, do not pass go" card.)  the question returns to "should Hillary have recognized it as classified" despite the lack of marking?

This was also addressed by Bill Clinton.  There were hundred of active participants on these emails who either did not recognize the classified nature of the information or ignored it,  These conversations were "extremely careless" so I'd suspect that all of those still in the employment of the government are facing sanctions of one kind or another.   And when it is hundreds I'd expect such a thing would be leaked.  But nope.  Why is this?

I suggested that maybe that is simply because the material in question is such that it isn't obviously classified.  And maybe it wasn't all that significant.   

You rebutted-

• Because Comey stated out of context that Hillary would face repercussions if she was still Secretary of State that obviously Hillary did something wrong.
  
• Because Comey went and asked if the information was classified (why is he asking if it is obvious?)
  
• And since none of the others involved were facing repercussions it was because the executive branch from the top down was avoiding doing anything that would make Hillary look bad.
  
• That other accusations on the email topic somehow confirm Hillary's inappropriate behavior on this question.
  
• Or that facts and evidence on this issue don't matter because it is Hillary .and that is all you need to know
  
• And that Hillary is pregnant
  
• And that I'm the one all over the place
  

The question to me remains open.   The evidence against Hillary is lacking and even seems to point to an answer of "no, there wasn't anything obviously classified", but there are also reasons to acknowledge that information is being held back which could support arguments in either direction.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

Clinton leads Trump by 14(!) in Virginia

Barring a shocking result in one of the Great Lakes states, Virginia + Pennsylvania + New Hampshire is all Clinton needs to win.  No Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, or Nevada necessary.   As you'd expect the odds have moved accordingly, Bovada currently at -450 for a Dem win and +325 for a GOP win.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Pretty interesting that both Nate Silver's long-term forecast and Oddschecker's best odds available are super sticky once you get to 1/3 and 3/1.  They've both bumped just slightly above/below those odds, but despite the avalanche of Clinton-favorable polls it's still "only" 78/22 at 538 and 77/23 at Oddschecker.

 

[badmojo1006]

Clinton announces her November transition team.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm addressing exactly one question-

 Were there e-mails that Hillary should have recognized as containing classified information such that she would have, or should have known her e-mail system contained classified information?  

The discussion starts with Comey asserting that the answer was "Yes" because three e-mails which contained markings.   But this immediately fell apart as a) the markings were not proper markings for classified material and b) the information in question apparently wasn't classified.  And since it fell apart immediately Comey "rolled back" this statement when he appeared before Congress.  But not until this "damning" "bull" had caused Hillary some harm and thus upset Bill Clinton.  In any case the first piece of evidence being "bull" falls short.

The discussion then moves to the 110 emails and 52 chains (though we should add in the 3 recovered emails) that contained information that some agency other than State had marked as classified by the time the emails were sent.   So yes there was classified information  And yes it was "extremely careless" for these discussion to be held out in the open on non secured email.  . So since that information is classified whether or not it is properly marked (you know the NDA which has been turned into a magical  "go directly to jail, do not pass go" card.)  the question returns to "should Hillary have recognized it as classified" despite the lack of marking?

This was also addressed by Bill Clinton.  There were hundred of active participants on these emails who either did not recognize the classified nature of the information or ignored it,  These conversations were "extremely careless" so I'd suspect that all of those still in the employment of the government are facing sanctions of one kind or another.   And when it is hundreds I'd expect such a thing would be leaked.  But nope.  Why is this?

I suggested that maybe that is simply because the material in question is such that it isn't obviously classified.  And maybe it wasn't all that significant.   

You rebutted-

• Because Comey stated out of context that Hillary would face repercussions if she was still Secretary of State that obviously Hillary did something wrong.
  
• Because Comey went and asked if the information was classified (why is he asking if it is obvious?)
  
• And since none of the others involved were facing repercussions it was because the executive branch from the top down was avoiding doing anything that would make Hillary look bad.
  
• That other accusations on the email topic somehow confirm Hillary's inappropriate behavior on this question.
  
• Or that facts and evidence on this issue don't matter because it is Hillary .and that is all you need to know
  
• And that Hillary is pregnant
  
• And that I'm the one all over the place
  

The question to me remains open.   The evidence against Hillary is lacking and even seems to point to an answer of "no, there wasn't anything obviously classified", but there are also reasons to acknowledge that information is being held back which could support arguments in either direction.  

I ignored your ridiculously large post and am just responding to your one boled questiob. The answer is, according to Comey, yes.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm addressing exactly one question-

 Were there e-mails that Hillary should have recognized as containing classified information such that she would have, or should have known her e-mail system contained classified information?  

.... The answer is, according to Comey, yes.

  and the precise quote in context.