Presidential Elections
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Nope. The rebuttal is that there was no issue with the NDA as the information was not marked classified at the time. Deeming the use of an external server as disclosure itself (which that NDA opinion piece suggests) is quite a stretch at best. We'll just see this thing get dragged out until Nov and then fizzle away.
That's a lose-lose for Hillary. If she gets indicted she has to drop out...if Comey recommends an indictment and Loreta Lynch refuses to proceed it will (rightfully) be interpreted as political and she will be castigated as guilty by the voters anyway. Either way she loses big
I'm not sure about that. The legitimacy of the indictment recommendation would be questioned as a partisan maneuver to derail the presidential ambitions for the nominee running on the opposing party. It would definitely be a liability but still unsure about the significance of it. It also feeds into the narrative of the constant smear campaign against her for the last few decades.
Comey has been a lifelong Republican who has donated to both Romney and McCain. He was deputy AG under G. W. Bush (acting when Ashcroft was in the hospital). He is essentially part of the Bush legacy and far from a "folk hero" to democrats. The only thing he was admired for (by democrats) was his opposition to the continuation of the unwarranted surveillance program.
Are there?
So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?
We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.
I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.
Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.
[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]
Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep. This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
Did you not read the NDA that morekaos posted? Please go through the previous replies.
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
As I said earlier, your rebuttal is based on a claim such as if X breaks the law, Y breaking the law is fine. When 2 cars are speeding on a freeway, one is going 2 above the speed limit and the other one is going 30 above the limit, the one going 30 above the limit will most likely be stopped because that is the one most likely to cause a lot of damage. I hope you get the analogy.
HomeOwner Irvine said:
Nope. The rebuttal is that there was no issue with the NDA as the information was not marked classified at the time. Deeming the use of an external server as disclosure itself (which that NDA opinion piece suggests) is quite a stretch at best. We'll just see this thing get dragged out until Nov and then fizzle away.
morekaos
Well-known member
If the material was not marked classified it was because the marking were removed when the information was transferred from the classified server. Clinton was caught in one email directing a subordinate to remove the classifications and send the email in the clear. The "they did it too" defense just doesn't hold water. I'll have to use that one next time I have to kill someone...OJ did it, so I thought it was OK. This one stinks to high heaven, it will be quite a pickle if Comey recommends an indictment and throws the whole mess into the AGs lap.
In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material
The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/08/boom-in-newlyreleased-email-hillary-orders-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680
In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material
The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/01/08/boom-in-newlyreleased-email-hillary-orders-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680
morekaos
Well-known member
peppy said:
That's a lose-lose for Hillary. If she gets indicted she has to drop out...if Comey recommends an indictment and Loreta Lynch refuses to proceed it will (rightfully) be interpreted as political and she will be castigated as guilty by the voters anyway. Either way she loses big
morekaos said:
I'm not sure about that. The legitimacy of the indictment recommendation would be questioned as a partisan maneuver to derail the presidential ambitions for the nominee running on the opposing party. It would definitely be a liability but still unsure about the significance of it. It also feeds into the narrative of the constant smear campaign against her for the last few decades.
morekaos
Well-known member
I disagree, James Comey is practically a democrat hero. He is widely seen as non-partisan so if he brings a solid case to the AG and she then refuses to indict I think half the staff at the FBI will quit in protest. Obama loves Comey, he appointed him enthusiastically. The only judgment of partisanship will fall on the shoulders of Loreta Lynch. It will be a crushing weight.
Obama's GOP FBI Pick a Folk Hero for Democrats
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-love-james-comey-obamas-republican-pick-lead/story?id=19289113
James Comey, the man President Obama is likely to nominate as the new director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, may be a Republican, but he's near and dear to the hearts of many liberals in Washington.
The former Bush administration official became something of a folk hero for some of the most riveting congressional testimony in history.
"As far as I'm concerned, when the Justice Department lost Jim Comey, it lost a towering figure," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during that congressional hearing in 2007. And when he said that, Schumer wasn't referring to Comey's 6'8 frame.
Obama's GOP FBI Pick a Folk Hero for Democrats
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/democrats-love-james-comey-obamas-republican-pick-lead/story?id=19289113
James Comey, the man President Obama is likely to nominate as the new director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, may be a Republican, but he's near and dear to the hearts of many liberals in Washington.
The former Bush administration official became something of a folk hero for some of the most riveting congressional testimony in history.
"As far as I'm concerned, when the Justice Department lost Jim Comey, it lost a towering figure," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., during that congressional hearing in 2007. And when he said that, Schumer wasn't referring to Comey's 6'8 frame.
morekaos said:
Comey has been a lifelong Republican who has donated to both Romney and McCain. He was deputy AG under G. W. Bush (acting when Ashcroft was in the hospital). He is essentially part of the Bush legacy and far from a "folk hero" to democrats. The only thing he was admired for (by democrats) was his opposition to the continuation of the unwarranted surveillance program.
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
A lot of information is not marked classified immediately, it is classified after reviewing the contents. I'm sure people working in government can clarify. When emails are marked with "top secret" classification afterwards, it means that the information being sent out was sensitive. Anyone could have access to it, including Chinese, Russians, or other non-state hackers. This information can be used against us or maybe is already being used against us. The fact that this is classified, we will never know.
If you have decided to turn a blind eye to it or maybe have interests related to Clinton, no one can convince you. This is the problem with certain voters on both sides of the aisle, they only want to see and hear what they think validates their thinking.
If you have decided to turn a blind eye to it or maybe have interests related to Clinton, no one can convince you. This is the problem with certain voters on both sides of the aisle, they only want to see and hear what they think validates their thinking.
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
She most definitely broke the The Federal Records Act. It requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails. Government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records. Breaking this law might not get her a jail term, but this is one example of a law she broke. Read the article below on other possible laws being broken. Also, if she nor her staff broke any laws why did her staffer need immunity?
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because no matter what it doesn't make a difference.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because no matter what it doesn't make a difference.
lowlyirvinerenter
New member
eyephone said:
Are there?
tim
New member
HomeOwner Irvine said:
So who can I vote for that has never broken a law?
We all have to choose from among the candidates that we have. Each person, including me and including you, makes value judgments that affect which imperfections we are willing to live with. It looks to me that we will get to pick between Clinton and Trump. For all of Clinton's faults, they don't come anywhere close to Trumps faults. Note that that is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion, based on how I value imperfections.
I see Clinton's use of this email server not as some nefarious thing. I think she was trying to do her job, but this was bad judgement. I can't find a candidate that hasn't made worse decisions, including her. This one just doesn't seem that bad.
Invading Iraq for no good reason and destroying the amazing goodwill that the USA had after 9/11? Really bad decision. Having sexual relations with an intern in the White House? Really bad decision. Iran-Contra? Really bad decision. Using your own email server? Not that bad. YMMV.
[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]
morekaos
Well-known member
tim said:
Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep. This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it