What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Rob Portman continues to lead his Senate race despite Trump. If this represents a trend, the Senate will remain in GOP hands. Which will then lead to the first major question of Hillary's presidency: the Supreme Court. 

1. Will the Senate push Garland through? 

2. Will Obama remove his nomination of Garland at Hillary's request? 

3. Will a Republican Senate simply refuse to approve anyone that Obama OR Hillary nominates? 
Click to expand...
Why would you assume Portman "represents a trend" when it seems like he's the outlier in not getting dragged down by Trump?  

 
Rich Conway said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Not being facetious here. You guys understand what's going on right? Hillary deleted them, tried to destroy them, then claimed they were private, and now the FBI & State have looked at many of them and have decided they are not private. That's clear, right?
Click to expand...
Very clear to most people.  Willfully ignored by others.
Click to expand...
Very clear-

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
intentionally
Click to expand...
BFS - totally different issue here. Look back at the OP by Anon Bob. The point is these are not private emails, and Hillary claimed she deleted private emails. They're being produced now because they're official and therefore public and not private. And they were deleted. Unintentionally? Fine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois are practically Dem Senate slamdunks at this point. 

I'd imagine PA and NH will prove difficult for Rs when Clinton wins both by 10.

And the Harry Reid machine will keep Nevada blue. 

Portman is just a strong candidate running a well funded excellent campaign. 

 
The Commish said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

Note that you might want to infer from that second sentence that the specific information that was classified would be obviously identifiable to a reasonable person, but such an inference ignores stronger evidence to the contrary especially that hundreds of employees at the very least ignored its presence.,   And I'm not so sure that these were just State Department employees - either
Click to expand...
The "they" in blue is Sec Clinton and her colleagues.  We all agree on that, correct?  It's pretty clear that's his point as you listen to / watch his statement.  I can't believe I'm letting myself get sucked into this, but here it goes.  To your "note" here at the bottom, it's a suggestion along the lines of "everybody's doing it" or "everybody else has done it", yes?  If so, why does it matter?  Does it make it less of a problem that everyone, Hillary included, is mishandling information?  Perhaps that's what you're saying above this quoted text (taking Hillary to task for the culture)?  That's been one of my assertions from the beginning (if that's what you're saying).  Allowing that sort of thing is much more a problem than the email content IMO...always has been.
Click to expand...
I'm hesitant to reply any longer at all.  I'll give you the courtesy of a reply,, but I think I'm done with this.  If you understood where I was coming from you wouldn't ask " Does it make it less of a problem that everyone, Hillary included, is mishandling information".   That is because I'm still trying to determine if anyone mishandled classified information.    Sure at the most basic level was there classified information in emails where it should not have been so classified information was mishandled but that statement isn't really very meaningful to determine much of anything.   More meaningful would be -

  • Did anyone potentially break the law such that they would be prosecuted for such actions.  I think just about everyone long before Comey stated such was the case concluded that an indictment was unlikely, admittedly for a variety of reasons.  So this would be a no.
  • Did anyone potentially still break the letter of  law even if not prosecuted.   This is less clear, but I think the discussions held a few months ago make it pretty clear that where intent was the standard the intent was clearly lacking and where gross negligence could become involved the facts required some shaping to fit the legal requirements.  Sure this is more debatable, but I'm good concluding that, absent new evidence this is also no,
  • Did anyone potentially violate the policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices of the executive branch - mostly, but not exclusively the standards of the State Department.  This is still an open question to me.  And yes an open question I'm trying to answer.  
Now as I stated above absent any other information it is a short step from "...any reasonable person ...should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation"" to "...any reasonable person ...should have known that the information was classified...".  And there are other similar statements which Comey made which hint to that conclusion, but if he stated it explicitly I missed it and can't find it in the transcripts.    But there are additional facts which prevent me from taking such a leap-

  • the number of people involved here is in the hundreds
  • the FBI investigated whether the information was classified.  They didn't just recognize it as such. 
  • the Executive Order that defines the vast majority of what is classified defined what may be classified, not what must be classified.  This means that the information was classified because who it belonged to as much as what it was.  The same information, if it instead would have belonged to the State Department would have been classified/unclassified entirely at Hillary's discretion.
  • Comey also stated "While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."  You might argue that the standards from elsewhere in the government should apply but they didn't and thus they don't o me.  Who has the better standards is a different debate. (They all overclassify, though State has a better excuse with information originating wth foreign governments).
  • among others
This additional information, as of now means I am not convinced that there is one email where the information it contained would have been obviously classified by any reasonable government employee.  I'm not saying that such an email doesn't exist, I'm just saying that I don't know with any level of confidence such an email exist.  Admittedly this is a very tough hurdle to clear without being able to see the actual emails.  And I'm OK if the question doesn't interest others, or if the evidence is being weighed differently by others.  This is just where I am at.  

 
Trey said:
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois are practically Dem Senate slamdunks at this point. 

I'd imagine PA and NH will prove difficult for Rs when Clinton wins both by 10.

And the Harry Reid machine will keep Nevada blue. 

Portman is just a strong candidate running a well funded excellent campaign. 
Click to expand...
This is where it is, might as well birdog the Senare races.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton's Foundation Will No Longer Accept Foreign Donations if Elected

by NBC NEWS POLITICAL UNIT

The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president, NBC News confirms.

So, I guess all those who got their bribes in first, will be the fortunate ones.  Its weird though, if these foreign donations really don't mean anything - in terms of political favors/benefits - why stop the donations?  Haven't the Clintonbots trotted out the old "its just a charity doing great things" bit?  Why would she want to stop the charity from doing good things?  I don't understand...

 
Sinn Fein said:
Clinton's Foundation Will No Longer Accept Foreign Donations if Elected

by NBC NEWS POLITICAL UNIT

The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president, NBC News confirms.

So, I guess all those who got their bribes in first, will be the fortunate ones.  Its weird though, if these foreign donations really don't mean anything - in terms of political favors/benefits - why stop the donations?  Haven't the Clintonbots trotted out the old "its just a charity doing great things" bit?  Why would she want to stop the charity from doing good things?  I don't understand...
Click to expand...
To avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. 

 
Leeroy Jenkins said:
To avoid the appearance of wrongdoing. 
Click to expand...
What appearance?  

She, through the foundation, has already taken hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign investors - either the damage is already done, or there is nothing to worry about, and no need to keep the foundation from receiving those new funds.

The notion that she can now say - hey, everything from this point is above board, and have her supporters just nod their head in agreement, is really astounding.

 
Trey said:
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois are practically Dem Senate slamdunks at this point. 

I'd imagine PA and NH will prove difficult for Rs when Clinton wins both by 10.

And the Harry Reid machine will keep Nevada blue. 

Portman is just a strong candidate running a well funded excellent campaign. 
Click to expand...
Was just looking at this today and got to the same place.  Portman looks like he's going to keep his seat.

So hold Nevada and take one of PA or NH, or take both PA and NH and Dems will have the Senate.

Think the talk about Arizona and Georgia is crazy.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Clinton's Foundation Will No Longer Accept Foreign Donations if Elected

by NBC NEWS POLITICAL UNIT

The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president, NBC News confirms.

So, I guess all those who got their bribes in first, will be the fortunate ones.  Its weird though, if these foreign donations really don't mean anything - in terms of political favors/benefits - why stop the donations?  Haven't the Clintonbots trotted out the old "its just a charity doing great things" bit?  Why would she want to stop the charity from doing good things?  I don't understand...
Click to expand...
IIRC Bill is also not doing speeches.

Good move.

Yes it's a concession at this point that what they were doing was wrong, but I would rather see them correct their behavior.

And TBH there is no difference between a foreign and domestic contribution, they ought to stop all donations and just remove themselves from the Foundation entirely. Hand it off to Gates or someone like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
IIRC Bill is also not doing speeches.

Good move.

Yes it's a concession at this point that what they were doing was wrong, but I would rather see them correct their behavior.

And TBH there is no difference between a foreign and domestic contribution, they ought to stop all donations and just remove themselves from the Foundation entirely. Hand it off to Gates or someone like that.
Click to expand...
How did you come to this conclusion?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's a bad idea and inappropriate now then it was a bad idea and inappropriate then.
Click to expand...
You said that the Clinton's had conceded your point and that is where my question comes from.  How did you come to the conclusion that the CLinton's agree with your take that what they were doing was wrong?

 
dutch said:
You said that the Clinton's had conceded your point and that is where my question comes from.  How did you come to the conclusion that the CLinton's agree with your take that what they were doing was wrong?
Click to expand...
By their actions, they've agreed to stop accepting foreign donations and doing paid speeches. 

 
timschochet said:
Rob Portman continues to lead his Senate race despite Trump. If this represents a trend, the Senate will remain in GOP hands. Which will then lead to the first major question of Hillary's presidency: the Supreme Court. 

1. Will the Senate push Garland through? 

2. Will Obama remove his nomination of Garland at Hillary's request? 

3. Will a Republican Senate simply refuse to approve anyone that Obama OR Hillary nominates? 
Click to expand...
 If the GOP  has a majority they will never again confirm a Supreme Court nomination by Democratic President. In fact they will filibuster every Democratic nominee no matter how moderate. There's clearly no downside to this strategy. The voters do not care and will not punish them for this strategy. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Clinton's Foundation Will No Longer Accept Foreign Donations if Elected

by NBC NEWS POLITICAL UNIT

The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president, NBC News confirms.

So, I guess all those who got their bribes in first, will be the fortunate ones.  Its weird though, if these foreign donations really don't mean anything - in terms of political favors/benefits - why stop the donations?  Haven't the Clintonbots trotted out the old "its just a charity doing great things" bit?  Why would she want to stop the charity from doing good things?  I don't understand...
Click to expand...
It is great that they have one last chance to get in all their "donations" before November

 
dutch said:
Because you, and others, think it is a bad idea and inappropriate so divesting the Foundation from foreign donations keeps that appearance of impropriety at bay.
Click to expand...
It would have been a good idea to do that 8 years ago instead of 4 months into the future

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Commish said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
:

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

Note that you might want to infer from that second sentence that the specific information that was classified would be obviously identifiable to a reasonable person, but such an inference ignores stronger evidence to the contrary especially that hundreds of employees at the very least ignored its presence.,   And I'm not so sure that these were just State Department employees - either
Click to expand...
The "they" in blue is Sec Clinton and her colleagues.  We all agree on that, correct?  It's pretty clear that's his point as you listen to / watch his statement.  I can't believe I'm letting myself get sucked into this, but here it goes.  To your "note" here at the bottom, it's a suggestion along the lines of "everybody's doing it" or "everybody else has done it", yes?  If so, why does it matter?  Does it make it less of a problem that everyone, Hillary included, is mishandling information?  Perhaps that's what you're saying above this quoted text (taking Hillary to task for the culture)?  That's been one of my assertions from the beginning (if that's what you're saying).  Allowing that sort of thing is much more a problem than the email content IMO...always has been.
Click to expand...
I'm hesitant to reply any longer at all.  I'll give you the courtesy of a reply,, but I think I'm done with this.  If you understood where I was coming from you wouldn't ask " Does it make it less of a problem that everyone, Hillary included, is mishandling information".   That is because I'm still trying to determine if anyone mishandled classified information.    Sure at the most basic level was there classified information in emails where it should not have been so classified information was mishandled but that statement isn't really very meaningful to determine much of anything.   More meaningful would be -

  • Did anyone potentially break the law such that they would be prosecuted for such actions.  I think just about everyone long before Comey stated such was the case concluded that an indictment was unlikely, admittedly for a variety of reasons.  So this would be a no.
  • Did anyone potentially still break the letter of  law even if not prosecuted.   This is less clear, but I think the discussions held a few months ago make it pretty clear that where intent was the standard the intent was clearly lacking and where gross negligence could become involved the facts required some shaping to fit the legal requirements.  Sure this is more debatable, but I'm good concluding that, absent new evidence this is also no,
  • Did anyone potentially violate the policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices of the executive branch - mostly, but not exclusively the standards of the State Department.  This is still an open question to me.  And yes an open question I'm trying to answer.  
Now as I stated above absent any other information it is a short step from "...any reasonable person ...should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation"" to "...any reasonable person ...should have known that the information was classified...".  And there are other similar statements which Comey made which hint to that conclusion, but if he stated it explicitly I missed it and can't find it in the transcripts.    But there are additional facts which prevent me from taking such a leap-

  • the number of people involved here is in the hundreds
  • the FBI investigated whether the information was classified.  They didn't just recognize it as such. 
  • the Executive Order that defines the vast majority of what is classified defined what may be classified, not what must be classified.  This means that the information was classified because who it belonged to as much as what it was.  The same information, if it instead would have belonged to the State Department would have been classified/unclassified entirely at Hillary's discretion.
  • Comey also stated "While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."  You might argue that the standards from elsewhere in the government should apply but they didn't and thus they don't o me.  Who has the better standards is a different debate. (They all overclassify, though State has a better excuse with information originating wth foreign governments).
  • among others
This additional information, as of now means I am not convinced that there is one email where the information it contained would have been obviously classified by any reasonable government employee.  I'm not saying that such an email doesn't exist, I'm just saying that I don't know with any level of confidence such an email exist.  Admittedly this is a very tough hurdle to clear without being able to see the actual emails.  And I'm OK if the question doesn't interest others, or if the evidence is being weighed differently by others.  This is just where I am at.  
Click to expand...
And this response is exactly why email content did not matter to me from the beginning.  The content is a symptom of a much larger problem and allows us to deflect from the reality that Hillary decided it was perfectly acceptable to set up her own server.  There is ONE person that's done this in this manner.  So, IMO, these are the issues of this event:

1.  Ignorance of the issues and insistence to move forward with it even though it was recommended not to.

2.  A weakened culture of cyber security throughout the State Department and no real measures implemented to do anything about it.

3.  Failure to own the mistake...hell, failure to even acknowledge it even after Comey said, "yeah, she ###### up".

I've maintained from the beginning that she wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't technically break the law.  That's a reflection on the law, not her actions.  Her actions were still wrong and very dangerous and there's been nothing to show otherwise.  Comey confirms it.  Maybe come out of the weeds and look at the big picture.  If one insists on digging into email content and trying out to figure where to draw that line, you'll be left chasing your tail.  I have yet to see an argument better than "everyone else does it" or "she didn't know any better".  That's not the hill I'd be willing to die on.  At best, this is true and it highlights the things I listed above.  At worst it sets "ignorance" as a defense.  Again, not a position I'd want to be defending from.  

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
Hi guys, still enjoying my vacation, but thought I'd check in here with some Saturday night thoughts: 

1. Everything is going Hillary's way, thankfully. Hard to see how she loses now; I no longer fear a cataclysmic event that will turn things around. My only remaining concern is what we in California call the "Bradley effect"; namely that a lot of voters are prepared to vote for Trump but won't admit it in the polls. That seems unlikely to change the result but who knows? Makes me nervous. 

2. A few people have taken the Hillary fans like myself to task here in recent days for predicting that Bernie Sanders would lose to Donald Trump. That's a little bit of revisionist history. For my own part, I did argue early on that Bernie would lose to the Republican candidate, but once it became clear that this candidate was going to be Trump, I stopped making that argument and wrote that in terms of winning it made no difference because the election would be about Trump, not about Hillary or Bernie. The dominant argument in this thread however, emphatically made by Sinn Fein and repeated by many others was the exact opposite: that Hillary would lose to Trump, and that Bernie was our only chance to defeat Trump. This argument was made all the way into early July: Sinn Fein, much like his alter ego Bernie fan H A Goodman, guaranteed a Hillary defeat (Goodman still does). 

3. I'm a little surprised there is not more discussion here about the CNN revelations regarding Cheryl Mills. For the first time there appears to an inappropriate connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's time in the State Department. It is to be sure a tenuous connection; it doesn't prove "pay to play" (as I have pointed out in the past, in order to prove that you need to present a deliberate quid pro quo, and nobody has) but at the very least it seems to be improper and perhaps a violation of ethics. 

4. Last summer the only guy in this forum willing to admit he was a Trump fan was Eminence. As Trump's popularity grew so did his supporters. Now it seems to have shrunk back to Eminence again; the others are nowhere to be seen. I almost feel sorry for Em (almost). 
Click to expand...
Help me understand the distinction between this "revelation" than any of the other information we've seen to date that you flat out rejected.  To me, this isn't as damning towards her character or judgment as many of the other things you've flat out rejected and argued against.  At worst, it's on par with all the other incidents
Click to expand...
Did Tim ever answer this?

 
The Commish said:
And this response is exactly why email content did not matter to me from the beginning.  The content is a symptom of a much larger problem and allows us to deflect from the reality that Hillary decided it was perfectly acceptable to set up her own server.  There is ONE person that's done this in this manner.  So, IMO, these are the issues of this event:

1.  Ignorance of the issues and insistence to move forward with it even though it was recommended not to.

2.  A weakened culture of cyber security throughout the State Department and no real measures implemented to do anything about it.

3.  Failure to own the mistake...hell, failure to even acknowledge it even after Comey said, "yeah, she ###### up".

I've maintained from the beginning that she wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't technically break the law.  That's a reflection on the law, not her actions.  Her actions were still wrong and very dangerous and there's been nothing to show otherwise.  Comey confirms it.  Maybe come out of the weeds and look at the big picture.  If one insists on digging into email content and trying out to figure where to draw that line, you'll be left chasing your tail.  I have yet to see an argument better than "everyone else does it" or "she didn't know any better".  That's not the hill I'd be willing to die on.  At best, this is true and it highlights the things I listed above.  At worst it sets "ignorance" as a defense.  Again, not a position I'd want to be defending from.  
Click to expand...
Personally I've understood your position for several months now. The part I don't understand is how you (or anyone else) could prioritize this issue to such an extent that it would disqualify Hillary from being President. What, after all, is the essential role of a Secretary of State? It's to supervise our relationships with other nations. The handling or mishandling of security issues, including emails, is a secomdary issue. 

Now deliberate corruption, if one can prove it, is another matter. But since you've chosen to remove that as an issue, your position makes little sense to me. Because she was incautious with emails as SOS, she is unqualified to be POTUS? That's a laughable argument IMO. 

 
Is there anyone here who previously supported Hillary Clinton (not by default, not because she isn't Trump, but actually supported her) and now does not because of the email stuff? I have yet to meet such a person. 

 
timschochet said:
Is there anyone here who previously supported Hillary Clinton (not by default, not because she isn't Trump, but actually supported her) and now does not because of the email stuff? I have yet to meet such a person. 
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the Riversco post about how he doesn't know anyone not voting for Trump. Hillary's trust/honesty number went in the toilet through the whole email thing, and it was mostly because of how she reacted to it. Now she's running against the Orange Loon. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This reminds me of the Riversco post about how he doesn't know anyone not voting for Trump. Hillary's trust/honesty number went in the toilet through the whole email thing, and it was mostly because of how she reacted to it. Now she's running against the Orange Loon. 
Click to expand...
Her trustworthy numbers have little to do with whether or not she'll be elected. There is this theory out there that Hillary would have lost to anybody but Trump. I don't buy it. She would have struggled more, but in the end she probably would have defeated anybody. We have a nation that is now majority Democrat and they're going to vote for the Democrat however much they distrust her. It's going to be very hard for Republicans to win the Presidency anymore. 

 
timschochet said:
Her trustworthy numbers have little to do with whether or not she'll be elected. There is this theory out there that Hillary would have lost to anybody but Trump. I don't buy it. She would have struggled more, but in the end she probably would have defeated anybody. We have a nation that is now majority Democrat and they're going to vote for the Democrat however much they distrust her. It's going to be very hard for Republicans to win the Presidency anymore. 
Click to expand...
She would or could likely have lost to Kaine, Biden or Sanders if either of the first two had gotten in. The GOP had a raft of crappy candidates but it's easy to see a Kasich/Rubio ticket or something similar winning. Hell Romney 2012 ould likely beat her. It's pointless to discuss but it's absurd to say bad unfavorable and distrust numbers don't affect a candidate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
She would or could likely have lost to Kaine, Biden or Sanders if either of the first two had gotten in. The GOP had a raft of crappy candidates but it's easy to see a Kasich/Rubio ticket or something similar winning. Hell Romney 2012 ould likely beat her. It's pointless to discuss but it's absurd to say bad unfavorable and distrust numbers don't affect a candidate.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you're right about Kaine or Biden but I'll give it merit, because I'm increasingly coming to believe that the Democratic nomination contest is going to be the gold medal so to speak. 

Kasiich/Rubio, I now believe, would have done much better than Trump, but in the end would have lost 51-49 or something like that. The national numbers for Republicans just aren't there anymore. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
And this response is exactly why email content did not matter to me from the beginning.  The content is a symptom of a much larger problem and allows us to deflect from the reality that Hillary decided it was perfectly acceptable to set up her own server.  There is ONE person that's done this in this manner.  So, IMO, these are the issues of this event:

1.  Ignorance of the issues and insistence to move forward with it even though it was recommended not to.

2.  A weakened culture of cyber security throughout the State Department and no real measures implemented to do anything about it.

3.  Failure to own the mistake...hell, failure to even acknowledge it even after Comey said, "yeah, she ###### up".

I've maintained from the beginning that she wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't technically break the law.  That's a reflection on the law, not her actions.  Her actions were still wrong and very dangerous and there's been nothing to show otherwise.  Comey confirms it.  Maybe come out of the weeds and look at the big picture.  If one insists on digging into email content and trying out to figure where to draw that line, you'll be left chasing your tail.  I have yet to see an argument better than "everyone else does it" or "she didn't know any better".  That's not the hill I'd be willing to die on.  At best, this is true and it highlights the things I listed above.  At worst it sets "ignorance" as a defense.  Again, not a position I'd want to be defending from.  
Click to expand...
Personally I've understood your position for several months now. The part I don't understand is how you (or anyone else) could prioritize this issue to such an extent that it would disqualify Hillary from being President. What, after all, is the essential role of a Secretary of State? It's to supervise our relationships with other nations. The handling or mishandling of security issues, including emails, is a secomdary issue. 

Now deliberate corruption, if one can prove it, is another matter. But since you've chosen to remove that as an issue, your position makes little sense to me. Because she was incautious with emails as SOS, she is unqualified to be POTUS? That's a laughable argument IMO. 
Click to expand...
I have never approached the email issue as a smoking gun of any kind.  It's just more of the already known wrapped in a neat little package.  I like how you keep trying to make my comments into something they aren't, nor ever have been.  The primary reason I've been engaged in this thread is the doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on "she did nothing wrong" and "it's a VRWC" shtick.  She did plenty wrong and it was a complete unforced error.  Is it enough, by itself to disqualify her?  No.  The only qualifications I know of are #1.  US citizen and #2 over 35 years of age.  The rest is opinion on what makes a poor/good leader...they aren't qualifications.

 
timschochet said:
Is there anyone here who previously supported Hillary Clinton (not by default, not because she isn't Trump, but actually supported her) and now does not because of the email stuff? I have yet to meet such a person. 
Click to expand...
I'm lifelong Left.  Never voted Republican.  Had tepid support for Hillary last year and it was a slow burn as that support dwindled -- mainly because it was evident that she didn't connect and strange that she was being so blatantly crammed down America's throat.  Then when the scandal broke, it was equally evident that she was brutally lying and that she endanagered national security -- which I could easily have forgiven, except it was for selfish aims.  And then she continued to lie, and I realized it really is a character thing with her.  And in discovering that and opening my eyes to the Clinton past, it was frightening how corrupt they are and how corrupted the system around them is.  Thus began my road to understanding they are incongruent with American principles and ideals.  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top