ADVERTISEMENT

Clinton spillage

gr8indoorsman

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 4, 2004
58,754
40,677
113
San Diego, CA
4 out of 40 emails from Clinton's private server examined by IG contained classified intelligence information. Such transgressions would likely get a GS or government contractor fired and their clearance revoked. For example, my colleague at last job was a government contractor from SAIC and could have one security "transgression" warning. A second was grounds for termination. That was anything from leaving a safe unlocked, to failing to lock up his Secret hard drive to someone else in our office leaving classified documents on a desk overnight (even though the office is a locked space) and him failing to correct it.

Now, I seriously doubt that 3000 of the 30000 (10% total) emails on her servers were classified, but this is fairly serious, IMO. Even 1% of all those emails is some serious spillage. But as I listen to Hillary's comments she doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and would obviously rather talk about something else.

I'm going to guess most of the classified information isn't "super secret squirrel" stuff, but even Confidential or Secret on an unclassified server these days is usually handled by non-judicial punishment (taking money), often a suspension or outright loss of security clearance, and as mentioned, firing in the civilian community especially if it's a repeat offense and depending on severity.

This is precisely why private email servers are not kosher for high level government officials to use for official business.

I'm not sure how anyone can place their continued trust in the Clintons, not that any politician probably deserves our trust.
 
4 out of 40 emails from Clinton's private server examined by IG contained classified intelligence information. Such transgressions would likely get a GS or government contractor fired and their clearance revoked. For example, my colleague at last job was a government contractor from SAIC and could have one security "transgression" warning. A second was grounds for termination. That was anything from leaving a safe unlocked, to failing to lock up his Secret hard drive to someone else in our office leaving classified documents on a desk overnight (even though the office is a locked space) and him failing to correct it.

Now, I seriously doubt that 3000 of the 30000 (10% total) emails on her servers were classified, but this is fairly serious, IMO. Even 1% of all those emails is some serious spillage. But as I listen to Hillary's comments she doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and would obviously rather talk about something else.

I'm going to guess most of the classified information isn't "super secret squirrel" stuff, but even Confidential or Secret on an unclassified server these days is usually handled by non-judicial punishment (taking money), often a suspension or outright loss of security clearance, and as mentioned, firing in the civilian community especially if it's a repeat offense and depending on severity.

This is precisely why private email servers are not kosher for high level government officials to use for official business.

I'm not sure how anyone can place their continued trust in the Clintons, not that any politician probably deserves our trust.

I don't know how anyone puts trust in any politician today but a person who spends the majority of their career in politics is the worst of the worst IMHO.
 
4 out of 40 emails from Clinton's private server examined by IG contained classified intelligence information. Such transgressions would likely get a GS or government contractor fired and their clearance revoked. For example, my colleague at last job was a government contractor from SAIC and could have one security "transgression" warning. A second was grounds for termination. That was anything from leaving a safe unlocked, to failing to lock up his Secret hard drive to someone else in our office leaving classified documents on a desk overnight (even though the office is a locked space) and him failing to correct it.

Now, I seriously doubt that 3000 of the 30000 (10% total) emails on her servers were classified, but this is fairly serious, IMO. Even 1% of all those emails is some serious spillage. But as I listen to Hillary's comments she doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and would obviously rather talk about something else.

I'm going to guess most of the classified information isn't "super secret squirrel" stuff, but even Confidential or Secret on an unclassified server these days is usually handled by non-judicial punishment (taking money), often a suspension or outright loss of security clearance, and as mentioned, firing in the civilian community especially if it's a repeat offense and depending on severity.

This is precisely why private email servers are not kosher for high level government officials to use for official business.

I'm not sure how anyone can place their continued trust in the Clintons, not that any politician probably deserves our trust.
What gets me about this is that Hillary wants to be President of the USA. She seems to have little regard for Classified data. The POTUS is one of a very limited number of people who can directly classify information. If she has this low regard for classified data, it would seem she may be unfit to be POTUS.
 
4 out of 40 emails from Clinton's private server examined by IG contained classified intelligence information. Such transgressions would likely get a GS or government contractor fired and their clearance revoked. For example, my colleague at last job was a government contractor from SAIC and could have one security "transgression" warning. A second was grounds for termination. That was anything from leaving a safe unlocked, to failing to lock up his Secret hard drive to someone else in our office leaving classified documents on a desk overnight (even though the office is a locked space) and him failing to correct it.

Now, I seriously doubt that 3000 of the 30000 (10% total) emails on her servers were classified, but this is fairly serious, IMO. Even 1% of all those emails is some serious spillage. But as I listen to Hillary's comments she doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and would obviously rather talk about something else.

I'm going to guess most of the classified information isn't "super secret squirrel" stuff, but even Confidential or Secret on an unclassified server these days is usually handled by non-judicial punishment (taking money), often a suspension or outright loss of security clearance, and as mentioned, firing in the civilian community especially if it's a repeat offense and depending on severity.

This is precisely why private email servers are not kosher for high level government officials to use for official business.

I'm not sure how anyone can place their continued trust in the Clintons, not that any politician probably deserves our trust.

So a mistake by Clinton, assuming it was actually a mistake by her and not someone else (i.e. she didn't send it, someone sent it to her) on this issue means it's not possible for anyone to place any trust in "the Clintons?" Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

Trust her in what way? Do we not trust that she won't push the nuclear button at the first chance? Or do we not trust that she doesn't have the downfall of all America on her plans? Or that she can't be trusted to be competent in anything she ever does?

Hillary Clinton is about the most obvious, you know exactly what you are going to get candidate we may have ever had for President, whether you think that good, medium or ill.
 
So a mistake by Clinton, assuming it was actually a mistake by her and not someone else (i.e. she didn't send it, someone sent it to her) on this issue means it's not possible for anyone to place any trust in "the Clintons?" Yeah, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

Trust her in what way? Do we not trust that she won't push the nuclear button at the first chance? Or do we not trust that she doesn't have the downfall of all America on her plans? Or that she can't be trusted to be competent in anything she ever does?

Hillary Clinton is about the most obvious, you know exactly what you are going to get candidate we may have ever had for President, whether you think that good, medium or ill.
Coupled with the dozens of other questions about the Clintons - their foundation, fundraising, impropriety in marriage, this, among others - yes. So. Not one thing. Thanks for being otherwise entirely predictable. Qaz sez, "It's a Democrat! No biggie!!"

By the way, the four emails cited by IG were sent by Clinton herself.
 
Last edited:
Coupled with the dozens of other questions about the Clintons - their foundation, fundraising, impropriety in marriage, this, among others - yes. So. Not one thing. Thanks for being otherwise entirely predictable. Qaz sez, "It's a Democrat! No biggie!!"

By the way, the four emails cited by IG were sent by Clinton herself.

You didn't say first of all "coupled with all this other stuff."

But let's examine your other stuff.

1. Their foundation. What about it?
2. Their fundraising. What about it?
3. Impropriety in their marriage? What impropriety has Hillary engaged in?

So basically, a lot of nothing is what I'm seeing. Yes, go ahead and play the "it's a democrat so Qaz says no biggie" card if you like. I've said very little if anything about any "scandals" of any republican candidate. I focus on issues. I didn't care about Bush's possible cocaine use, the fact that the first lady actually ran over and killed a guy, or Obama's drug use. I didn't try to hype any Romney scandals. I focused on their policy positions. Most of the time, these "scandals" regardless of party are simply wishful thinking by folks on the other side who already dislike the candidate anyways and thus buy into the worst possible presentations of them. OR folks on the same side who support another candidate.

You wanna talk predictable? Hillary Clinton being attacked for a lot of nothing is predictable. She's got a ton of policy positions, attack her on that.
 
You didn't say first of all "coupled with all this other stuff."

But let's examine your other stuff.

1. Their foundation. What about it?
2. Their fundraising. What about it?
3. Impropriety in their marriage? What impropriety has Hillary engaged in?

So basically, a lot of nothing is what I'm seeing. Yes, go ahead and play the "it's a democrat so Qaz says no biggie" card if you like. I've said very little if anything about any "scandals" of any republican candidate. I focus on issues. I didn't care about Bush's possible cocaine use, the fact that the first lady actually ran over and killed a guy, or Obama's drug use. I didn't try to hype any Romney scandals. I focused on their policy positions. Most of the time, these "scandals" regardless of party are simply wishful thinking by folks on the other side who already dislike the candidate anyways and thus buy into the worst possible presentations of them. OR folks on the same side who support another candidate.

You wanna talk predictable? Hillary Clinton being attacked for a lot of nothing is predictable. She's got a ton of policy positions, attack her on that.
Any government civilian (or military) who sent four secret classification emails from their house would be investigated. Certainly this should apply to someone aspiring to the presidency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSLBoiler
Any government civilian (or military) who sent four secret classification emails from their house would be investigated. Certainly this should apply to someone aspiring to the presidency.
This. Exactly this. qazplm, I thought you were smarter than that, seeing that you have a military background. Handling of Classified data is a big deal. She seems to have little regard for handling it properly.

In fact, any government civilian (or military) who handled Classified data this way could very well lose their clearance, and depending on what was leaked, could be in line for monetary fines and jail time.
 
Any government civilian (or military) who sent four secret classification emails from their house would be investigated. Certainly this should apply to someone aspiring to the presidency.

How did we find out about this? Wasn't there an investigation? Do you think the rest of her emails won't be looked at to see who or how this happened? Will she then not have to answer this satisfactorily to enough people to be elected?

So exactly what you want is exactly what is happening...except no, you appear to want this to be instantly discrediting, as if because this happened, even though we don't know if Hillary was actually the person responsible (if you sent me a secret classified email to my nipr account, it wouldn't be my fault, it would be yours) she cannot possibly be President now.

Except only folks on one side of the political spectrum will buy that, and even then not that many.

And no SDBoiler, poor handling of classified data usually does not result in fines or jail time, only sometimes, and as with most things, it depends.
Petraeus did it with his mistress, but it was low level stuff, and he didn't get jail time, which I was ok with. And that was clearly Petraeus doing it knowingly, two things not remotely even shown yet with Clinton (and certainly not with an adulterous lover). I don't recall folks saying much about Petraeus around here at all, but now, all of a sudden, it's a concern?
 
Hillary personally sent the four emails containing Secret information. From the WSJ this morning:

By Byron Tau
Updated July 24, 2015 3:06 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.

Poor handling of classified information doesn't result in "fines" per se, but it does result in non-judicial punishment which can lead to reduction in rate, forfeiture of pay, or administrative separation. I have personally seen both RiR and pay forfeiture for mishandling classified information.

Certainly deliberate mishandling/selling/etc. has resulted in prison time, but I seriously doubt that's what went on here. More likely, she doesn't have the first clue what is actually classified and what's not unless it is so marked. As a handler of classified information, just like I am, she is responsible for the content of her conversations and emails, even if they're improperly marked, or not at all... just like I am and every other person read into a security clearance is.

That's a basic responsibility documented in junior enlisted evaluations for our Cryptologic Technicians, Information Systems Technicians, and Intelligence Specialists specifically stating how they properly handle classified information.

So yes, I do think that's a big deal for the Secretary of State since it's a big deal for the E-3 or O-5, the GS-13 and the government contractor. It'd be hard to take the government seriously when they talk about how bad WikiLeaks can be when the SecState (or President, God forbid) can't even properly handle Secret information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timster
Petraeus did it with his mistress, but it was low level stuff, and he didn't get jail time, which I was ok with. And that was clearly Petraeus doing it knowingly, two things not remotely even shown yet with Clinton (and certainly not with an adulterous lover). I don't recall folks saying much about Petraeus around here at all, but now, all of a sudden, it's a concern?
Patraeus lost his job, his reputation, and plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Oh and he wasn't running for president. Maybe we wouldn't talk about it if Hillary came clean and said she did this and, you know, wasn't running for president.
 
Hillary personally sent the four emails containing Secret information. From the WSJ this morning:



Poor handling of classified information doesn't result in "fines" per se, but it does result in non-judicial punishment which can lead to reduction in rate, forfeiture of pay, or administrative separation. I have personally seen both RiR and pay forfeiture for mishandling classified information.

Certainly deliberate mishandling/selling/etc. has resulted in prison time, but I seriously doubt that's what went on here. More likely, she doesn't have the first clue what is actually classified and what's not unless it is so marked. As a handler of classified information, just like I am, she is responsible for the content of her conversations and emails, even if they're improperly marked, or not at all... just like I am and every other person read into a security clearance is.

That's a basic responsibility documented in junior enlisted evaluations for our Cryptologic Technicians, Information Systems Technicians, and Intelligence Specialists specifically stating how they properly handle classified information.

So yes, I do think that's a big deal for the Secretary of State since it's a big deal for the E-3 or O-5, the GS-13 and the government contractor. It'd be hard to take the government seriously when they talk about how bad WikiLeaks can be when the SecState (or President, God forbid) can't even properly handle Secret information.

Even more detail:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Read through that and what you get is that the emails we are talking about weren't classified by the State Dept. The intelligence community IG thought they SHOULD be classified, but State disagreed:

"On June 29, 2015, OIG and ICIG sent you a follow-up memorandum providing additional information supporting our concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails (see Attachment D). Since then, ICIG has received confirmation from IC FOIA officials that several of these emails contained classified IC information, though they were not marked as classified."

Of the four emails, one the DOD said didn't need to be classified, and one Near Eastern Affairs said it didn't need to be classified. The last two are duplicates, and the FBI believes it should be classified, but State does not.

And the concern raised by the IC is NOT the Hillary emails sent or received, it's about the FOIA release process concerning those emails.

http://time.com/3971854/hillary-clinton-email-classified/

Similar language there. So what we have is a dispute between State and the intelligence community over whether something should have been classified or not. This isn't simply Hillary Clinton saying "Eh, I don't care about classified material, I'm going to do what I want." It's not even "Duh, I'm stupid Hillary who doesn't understand classified material."
 
Even more detail:
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-15-04-05.pdf

Read through that and what you get is that the emails we are talking about weren't classified by the State Dept. The intelligence community IG thought they SHOULD be classified, but State disagreed:

"On June 29, 2015, OIG and ICIG sent you a follow-up memorandum providing additional information supporting our concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails (see Attachment D). Since then, ICIG has received confirmation from IC FOIA officials that several of these emails contained classified IC information, though they were not marked as classified."

Of the four emails, one the DOD said didn't need to be classified, and one Near Eastern Affairs said it didn't need to be classified. The last two are duplicates, and the FBI believes it should be classified, but State does not.

And the concern raised by the IC is NOT the Hillary emails sent or received, it's about the FOIA release process concerning those emails.

http://time.com/3971854/hillary-clinton-email-classified/

Similar language there. So what we have is a dispute between State and the intelligence community over whether something should have been classified or not. This isn't simply Hillary Clinton saying "Eh, I don't care about classified material, I'm going to do what I want." It's not even "Duh, I'm stupid Hillary who doesn't understand classified material."
The distinction here is that it is intelligence information which means State is not the classifying authority. Thus, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what State thinks, because they are obligated to follow what the intelligence community says.

I can't decide what something should be classified if it is classified by another authority. I have to honor it and properly cite the classifying authority in any document or email where I choose to use the information.

This is basic stuff I have to do every day. You're out of your element here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSLBoiler
The distinction here is that it is intelligence information which means State is not the classifying authority. Thus, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what State thinks, because they are obligated to follow what the intelligence community says.

I can't decide what something should be classified if it is classified by another authority. I have to honor it and properly cite the classifying authority in any document or email where I choose to use the information.

This is basic stuff I have to do every day. You're out of your element here.

It makes a "damn bit of difference" when you are deciding whether this is something that makes Hillary Clinton "untrustworthy" or not.

You "deal with this every day" thus to you this is an outsized magnitude of importance. I deal with secret material as well. I JUST dealt with improper release of material yesterday. I can't take my darn cell phone into work because the entire floor of my building where I work doesn't allow electronics. Guess which office is involved every single time there's an issue with improper release of material from TS down to PII? JAG, which I lead. So nice try. Accidental spillage happens on a fairly regular basis unfortunately, and we aren't prosecuting or even firing folks left and right for it. It depends on a host of factors.

But I also realize there are all sorts of complexities and intricacies involved, and, once again, it isn't remotely as simple as you want it to be. This wasn't just about "State" it was also about DOD. They most certainly are a classifying authority, and they declined to raise the classification level of something the IC wanted higher for one of the four emails.

And, once again, you've skipped past the point, which is that the concern raised by the IC was NOT Hillary's email usage, it was the FOIA process being used to review her emails.
This is an interdepartmental fight over appropriate FOIA review and handling. It is not a fight over Hillary revealing or sending or doing anything improper with classified materials...which is why the original reports have had to be rewritten since the initial "breaking news" stories.

I've also seen nothing that shows definitively that Hillary sent those emails anywhere, but even if she did, again, it is not clear this isn't an issue of retroactive classification which again fits why the IGs are upset with State and the FOIA process.

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/24/ranking-hillary-clintons-e-mail-problems/

"Congressional Democrats are coming to her rescue, saying the information was classified retroactively after she stepped down as secretary of state."

This last little bit makes sense, and ties in to what I am saying. Something was originally not classified, then someone later says, that should have been classified...eventually it is classified, after Hillary steps down, but BEFORE the FOIA issue arises. The FOIA issue arises and the IC is upset at the FOIA handlers for State (again NOT at Hillary) and raise the issue.

How do we know this? Look at the NY Times reporting:

"In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them."

"In May, the F.B.I. asked the State Department to classify a section of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that related to suspects who may have been arrested in connection with the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The information was not classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received it."

"The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations."

You are determined to make this really simple and clearly about Hillary, when there's little evidence it's either.
 
How did we find out about this? Wasn't there an investigation? Do you think the rest of her emails won't be looked at to see who or how this happened? Will she then not have to answer this satisfactorily to enough people to be elected?

So exactly what you want is exactly what is happening...except no, you appear to want this to be instantly discrediting, as if because this happened, even though we don't know if Hillary was actually the person responsible (if you sent me a secret classified email to my nipr account, it wouldn't be my fault, it would be yours) she cannot possibly be President now.

Except only folks on one side of the political spectrum will buy that, and even then not that many.

And no SDBoiler, poor handling of classified data usually does not result in fines or jail time, only sometimes, and as with most things, it depends.
Petraeus did it with his mistress, but it was low level stuff, and he didn't get jail time, which I was ok with. And that was clearly Petraeus doing it knowingly, two things not remotely even shown yet with Clinton (and certainly not with an adulterous lover). I don't recall folks saying much about Petraeus around here at all, but now, all of a sudden, it's a concern?
What I said was: "In fact, any government civilian (or military) who handled Classified data this way could very well lose their clearance, and depending on what was leaked, could be in line for monetary fines and jail time."

As has been pointed out, this is a somewhat complex process. Some people deal with Classified data who are not in the military itself and these people are the ones likely to get fines or jail time. If the government investigates a government contractor and finds improper handling of Classified data, these people can be fined and/or put in jail, depending on the circumstances and the data leakage. Not saying they must be, they can be. If contractors handle Classified data badly, they can certainly lose their clearance.
 
And likewise, as usual, you are determined to make this NOT a big deal and NOT about a Democrat. Enjoyed the thread.

Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State’s Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton’s Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05)

That's the title of the effing memo that is the basis of this whole story.


http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

"Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control.

The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations.

In March, Mrs. Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of information on her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said.

No reader could possibly know that the two paragraphs, jammed together and using similar phrases—handling of information and handling of sensitive information—have nothing to do with each other. The first paragraph is once again based on the inspectors general’s memos. And again, what those memos are actually discussing is the way that the FOIA office is handling its review of the former secretary of state’s emails for public release. They in no way discuss Clinton, her handling of emails or anything approaching those topics.

But by slapping those two paragraphs together and using the same words, the Times—again, either out of recklessness, ignorance or intentional deception—makes it seem as if the inspectors general are saying Clinton mishandled classified information. They didn’t.

"In our hyper-partisan world, many people will not care about the truth here.
"
 
What I said was: "In fact, any government civilian (or military) who handled Classified data this way could very well lose their clearance, and depending on what was leaked, could be in line for monetary fines and jail time."

As has been pointed out, this is a somewhat complex process. Some people deal with Classified data who are not in the military itself and these people are the ones likely to get fines or jail time. If the government investigates a government contractor and finds improper handling of Classified data, these people can be fined and/or put in jail, depending on the circumstances and the data leakage. Not saying they must be, they can be. If contractors handle Classified data badly, they can certainly lose their clearance.

Of course if you, or Gr8, bothered to read the source documents I provided, the actual complaints, you'd see this has NOTHING to do with Hillary sending or receiving emails. But neither of you can be bothered to do that.
 
I have read on multiple platforms that emails sent by Hillary contained classified information. While it may be a "turf war" between State and Intelligence agencies, and never once have I said I think there's anything criminal involved, it definitely raises more questions about her handling of State affairs again on private email accounts in the same vain that you and I have recently and frequently been discouraged from using our own emails for official use.

You may well be right and it's no big deal. Definitely some shoddy reporting on the part of the Times. I'm sure more clarity will be provided in the next week.
 
Qazplm has to be one of the least intelligent party-line followers I've ever witnessed. Try thinking for yourself for once. Clinton could come out and claim that all Baptists deserve to be placed in gas chambers and you would find a way to defend it. Embarrassed for ya, bro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSLBoiler
I have read on multiple platforms that emails sent by Hillary contained classified information. While it may be a "turf war" between State and Intelligence agencies, and never once have I said I think there's anything criminal involved, it definitely raises more questions about her handling of State affairs again on private email accounts in the same vain that you and I have recently and frequently been discouraged from using our own emails for official use.

You may well be right and it's no big deal. Definitely some shoddy reporting on the part of the Times. I'm sure more clarity will be provided in the next week.

I'm sure you have read on multiple platforms that the emails were sent by Hillary.

I've given you the exact source documents. This is your field right? So tell us, what do the source documents say? And what don't they say?
 
Qazplm has to be one of the least intelligent party-line followers I've ever witnessed. Try thinking for yourself for once. Clinton could come out and claim that all Baptists deserve to be placed in gas chambers and you would find a way to defend it. Embarrassed for ya, bro.

We got Gr8 to a half concession, but I see you're still locked in. Not surprising.
 
I'm sure you have read on multiple platforms that the emails were sent by Hillary.

I've given you the exact source documents. This is your field right? So tell us, what do the source documents say? And what don't they say?
I haven't seen the source document from the IG about the findings. I've seen the request for the inquiry. But CNN, WSJ, Times, etc. have all reported this weekend (ie not initial reports) that the emails in question were sent by Clinton.

Yes, you got a half concession from me. You should try it sometime yourself.
 
I haven't seen the source document from the IG about the findings. I've seen the request for the inquiry. But CNN, WSJ, Times, etc. have all reported this weekend (ie not initial reports) that the emails in question were sent by Clinton.

Yes, you got a half concession from me. You should try it sometime yourself.

Yawn...it took two days and multiple links to even get you to begin to critically think about this issue other than "Qaz being predictable" which is the card you pull out every time.
That card was obviously wrong this time, not that you'll remotely admit it, so color me unimpressed that even now you're still trying to play it.
 
That card was obviously wrong this time, not that you'll remotely admit it, so color me unimpressed that even now you're still trying to play it.

I don't know how "obviously wrong" it is, but you'll pass out holding your breath before you get that kind of consolation from me after some of the times where you've been proven just egregiously wrong. You'd have to give it once in your life to ever get it again from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSLBoiler
I don't know how "obviously wrong" it is, but you'll pass out holding your breath before you get that kind of consolation from me after some of the times where you've been proven just egregiously wrong. You'd have to give it once in your life to ever get it again from me.

don't want it, don't need it, and ditto on your "egregiously wrong" characterization. So since neither of us is tremendously impressed with the other, I vote we both duly note it, and move on, unless you want to keep playing the card over and over again, feel free, it's a free message board...knock yourself out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
qazplm,

Just move on? Nothing to see here? For a "nothing" story, this sure seems to not want to die quietly...

http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-gene...es-potential-minefield-hillary-170521492.html
qazplm,

Just move on? Nothing to see here? For a "nothing" story, this sure seems to not want to die quietly...

http://news.yahoo.com/attorney-gene...es-potential-minefield-hillary-170521492.html

You literally posted nothing new. You realize that right?
 
You literally posted nothing new. You realize that right?
Doesn't change the fact that left-leaning news organizations keep covering this story, and some are beginning to question Hillary's judgment and moral compass. This one flat out called her a liar repeatedly.

You don't think this is cause for concern at all? For you, I guess not. Nothing to see here.
 
Doesn't change the fact that left-leaning news organizations keep covering this story, and some are beginning to question Hillary's judgment and moral compass. This one flat out called her a liar repeatedly.

You don't think this is cause for concern at all? For you, I guess not. Nothing to see here.

Not really. Some folks on the left don't like the Clintons because they think they are too pro-corporation. The NYTs is no different than any other news organization...they are lazy, looking for a story to sell media, and don't like the idea of a boring runaway primary. That's why Trump gets so much attention as well.

Every poll out there shows Hillary beating everyone either by a little or a lot, and demographically the female vote will be even bigger for her than the youth/AA vote was for Obama. The only person who can lose it is Hillary and it won't be because of a manufactured scandal, it will only be because she's a fairly poor campaigner, always has been. I don't think she loses, but if she does, that will be why.

And yes, as I've repeatedly shown, there literally is nothing new to see here.
 
Not really. Some folks on the left don't like the Clintons because they think they are too pro-corporation. The NYTs is no different than any other news organization...they are lazy, looking for a story to sell media, and don't like the idea of a boring runaway primary. That's why Trump gets so much attention as well.

Every poll out there shows Hillary beating everyone either by a little or a lot, and demographically the female vote will be even bigger for her than the youth/AA vote was for Obama. The only person who can lose it is Hillary and it won't be because of a manufactured scandal, it will only be because she's a fairly poor campaigner, always has been. I don't think she loses, but if she does, that will be why.

And yes, as I've repeatedly shown, there literally is nothing new to see here.
Not true. On July 22nd the Quinnipiac Poll showed in so-called "swing states":

Wednesday, July 22
Race/Topic (Click to Sort)
Poll Results Spread
Colorado: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Bush 41, Clinton 36 Bush +5
Colorado: Walker vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Walker 47, Clinton 38 Walker +9
Colorado: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 46, Clinton 38 Rubio +8
Virginia: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Bush 42, Clinton 39 Bush +3
Virginia: Walker vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Walker 43, Clinton 40 Walker +3
Virginia: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 43, Clinton 41 Rubio +2
Iowa: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Bush 42, Clinton 36 Bush +6
Iowa: Walker vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Walker 45, Clinton 37 Walker +8
Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 44, Clinton 36 Rubio +8
Colorado: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Bush 45, Biden 36 Bush +9
Colorado: Walker vs. Biden Quinnipiac Walker 48, Biden 36 Walker +12
Colorado: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Rubio 49, Biden 35 Rubio +14
Virginia: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Bush 45, Biden 40 Bush +5
Virginia: Walker vs. Biden Quinnipiac Walker 45, Biden 41 Walker +4
Virginia: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Biden 41 Rubio +4
Iowa: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Bush 44, Biden 37 Bush +7
Iowa: Walker vs. Biden Quinnipiac Walker 47, Biden 36 Walker +11
Iowa: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Biden 37 Rubio +8
Colorado: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 43, Sanders 37 Bush +6
Colorado: Walker vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Walker 44, Sanders 36 Walker +8
Colorado: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 46, Sanders 35 Rubio +11
Virginia: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 46, Sanders 36 Bush +10
Virginia: Walker vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Walker 44, Sanders 36 Walker +8
Virginia: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 44, Sanders 37 Rubio +7
Iowa: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 42, Sanders 38 Bush +4
Iowa: Walker vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Walker 44, Sanders 36 Walker +8
Iowa: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 43, Sanders 36 Rubio +
 
I forgot about the Q-poll. Got another? I believe it's literally the only one.
But let me ask you, do you really think Hillary Clinton only gets 36 percent in Colorado or Iowa?
 
I forgot about the Q-poll. Got another? I believe it's literally the only one.
But let me ask you, do you really think Hillary Clinton only gets 36 percent in Colorado or Iowa?
Midterm elections have proven to be a different animal than presidential elections, but we've seen registered independents and swing voters move away from the Democrats in recent years. Factor in a mood of"anyone but another Bush or Clinton" for both sides. So do you see that holding Hillary down in Colorado or Iowa, or nationally for that matter?
 
Midterm elections have proven to be a different animal than presidential elections, but we've seen registered independents and swing voters move away from the Democrats in recent years. Factor in a mood of"anyone but another Bush or Clinton" for both sides. So do you see that holding Hillary down in Colorado or Iowa, or nationally for that matter?
This is a very good point, and one that both sides need to cognizant of. It appears that some of the "powers that be" feel that we are in an age of "heredity succession" and that Bushes and Clintons always play well. In my mind, another Bush vs. Clinton election would be absolutely awful for this country, and I think there are millions of folks who will vote for someone new over someone from the Bush or Clinton clans.
 
I forgot about the Q-poll. Got another? I believe it's literally the only one.
But let me ask you, do you really think Hillary Clinton only gets 36 percent in Colorado or Iowa?
It is possible that Hillary gets under 40% in Iowa, sure. Colorado, not as sure. One other thing. I'm not sure that the other polls showing 10%+ leads for Hildebeast are close to being accurate either. Part of it depends on the polling samples being used. Are they representative of likely voters in 2016? I don't see the groundswell of support for Hillary right now that I see for people like Sanders (in certain places) and for people like Walker and Trump in others.
 
Midterm elections have proven to be a different animal than presidential elections, but we've seen registered independents and swing voters move away from the Democrats in recent years. Factor in a mood of"anyone but another Bush or Clinton" for both sides. So do you see that holding Hillary down in Colorado or Iowa, or nationally for that matter?

Take a look at the current approval ratings for the Dems and Reps: doesn't support your theory. Neither do all of the rest of the polls that aren't Q.

pew-poll.jpg
 
It is possible that Hillary gets under 40% in Iowa, sure. Colorado, not as sure. One other thing. I'm not sure that the other polls showing 10%+ leads for Hildebeast are close to being accurate either. Part of it depends on the polling samples being used. Are they representative of likely voters in 2016? I don't see the groundswell of support for Hillary right now that I see for people like Sanders (in certain places) and for people like Walker and Trump in others.

No, it isn't. The only way either of the two party candidates poll below 40 percent in a purple state is if a third party is running. Iowa and Colorado are not deep red or even light red states.

Romney only went below 40 in ten states, all deep blue. Obama in 13, all deep red. I can see Hillary losing Colorado or Iowa. They were close enough last time, and they are purple states, but it won't be by such a large amount.
 
Take a look at the current approval ratings for the Dems and Reps: doesn't support your theory. Neither do all of the rest of the polls that aren't Q.

pew-poll.jpg
"Approval ratings" have little to do with "likely voters" and you know it. Based on what you show there, how do you explain the Republican trouncing of the Dems in the mid-term election? 45%-46% Dem to 37-41%% Rep yet the Republicans destroyed the Dems and gained significant ground in Congress.
 
"Approval ratings" have little to do with "likely voters" and you know it. Based on what you show there, how do you explain the Republican trouncing of the Dems in the mid-term election? 45%-46% Dem to 37-41%% Rep yet the Republicans destroyed the Dems and gained significant ground in Congress.

Another poster types this:

"but we've seen registered independents and swing voters move away from the Democrats in recent years."

I respond with an appropriate, recent poll showing otherwise.

You respond with a non-sequitur.

But since we are changing topics, I'll play.

How do I explain the republican trouncing in 2014? I explain it the same way I explain the republican trouncing of 2010, or the democratic trouncing of 2006 or just about any off-cycle election of the party not in the white house going back decades with few exceptions...particularly at the 6 year mark.

I explain 2016 the same way I explain 2012 and 2008, the dems do better in presidential years because young people and minorities are more likely to vote in a presidential election and that bleeds over into congressional races. republicans do better in off-cycle elections, particularly when they don't control the WH because those electorates skew older and whiter and more male most of the time.

There are exceptions as always, but that is a general pattern that holds up pretty well.

I expect a dem victory across the board in 2016 (except redistricting means it's almost impossible to win back the house). I expect the republicans to make back gains in 2018 in the senate (although I haven't looked to see which 33 percent of seats are in play). IOW, I expect the pattern to hold because I don't see anything transformative to break that pattern one way or the other.
 
ADVERTISEMENT