ADVERTISEMENT

Clinton spillage

And? There's nothing new in that story, and there's nothing in there that won't be repeated 100 times over the next 6 months...and at some point, the public is going to tire of this "scandal" unless some definitive proof comes out that Hillary did something illegal.

Certainly that's possible, but at this point, it's not on the horizon. And as far as unfavorables? Look at the other side and their GE unfavorables. There are not going to be well-liked nominees for either party this coming election.
 
uhh CNN just came out with a poll and she's ahead of ALL the republican candidates by at least 6 pts.

There goes your falling fast theory.

FOX has here behind everyone but Trump nationally. And before you blast FOX keep in mind they had Obama leading the entire GE in 08. And Quinnipiac has her behind In FL, only ahead of 2of 3 in OH, but behind in PA of all places.

Anyway, I am unlikely to vote for her, would depend on matchup and third party candidates. That said, I can only hope her handlers are as dismissive of the situation as you are.
 
I hope they are too, because to waste time on it is pointless...they should be working on other things.
 
Colin Powell also used a private email account as Secretary of State under Bush - and recalls no regulation or being told not to do so.

Is it crazy to think this? Yes, but again - not really Hillary-specific.

Well then if that is the case and there appears to be negligence by Colin Powell, then yes he should be investigated too. Negligence is not limited to one political party. If found to have used a non secure server to handle classified information then, yes, she should be prosecuted. If not, then she is free to go about her business. I could care less if she is a Democrat, but if she violated the law then she should have to pay for her mistakes. The fact that so many Liberals are blowing this off like its nothing just shows how much political obedience obscures sound judgement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue97
If SHE deleted actual classified emails, as in emails that she knew was classified, and that there is no dispute were classified and not retroactively classified? Then that would be a crime, and she'd have been guilty of lying...so she'd probably have to drop out of the race, and she could be facing prosecution. I don't see how she could stay in at that point, and her support would crater. We'd all be "feeling the Bern" because he'd be the Dem nominee. So my position about her would change because it would actually be, in that scenario, what folks on the right want it to be...an actual crime + lying.

If it's one of those, one department thinks it should be, and another department thinks it shouldn't be, and maybe it came from open source or maybe it came from classified, like what we have now? Then I maintain my present position.

If folks want to say it was dumb in hindsight to have done the personal emails system thing...I suspect she'd wholeheartedly agree. The whole "that alone disqualifies her" thought process is pure partisanship. But as it stands right now, there's no evidence she sent classified emails, and sketchy evidence she ever received any, and no evidence she knowingly did so or knowingly deleted any.
 
And to be clear, I wish there was a better alternative to Clinton. But Bernie is not electable in a GE IMO, and she's WAY better an alternative than any member of the Clown Car for me. But that's always the problem when one party holds the WH for two terms...the bench gets dusty. Hillary is KIND of like a VP-type figure in the party, and I suppose she's better than Biden (more liberal, less prone to gaffe (although it's close)).

I wish there was another Obama out there who could come along and continue to build on the momentum, but if there is one, they are blocked out by Hillary's shadow. Having said that choosing between her and the right is a no-brainer for me.
 
If SHE deleted actual classified emails, as in emails that she knew was classified, and that there is no dispute were classified and not retroactively classified? Then that would be a crime, and she'd have been guilty of lying...so she'd probably have to drop out of the race, and she could be facing prosecution. I don't see how she could stay in at that point, and her support would crater. We'd all be "feeling the Bern" because he'd be the Dem nominee. So my position about her would change because it would actually be, in that scenario, what folks on the right want it to be...an actual crime + lying.

If it's one of those, one department thinks it should be, and another department thinks it shouldn't be, and maybe it came from open source or maybe it came from classified, like what we have now? Then I maintain my present position.

If folks want to say it was dumb in hindsight to have done the personal emails system thing...I suspect she'd wholeheartedly agree. The whole "that alone disqualifies her" thought process is pure partisanship. But as it stands right now, there's no evidence she sent classified emails, and sketchy evidence she ever received any, and no evidence she knowingly did so or knowingly deleted any.

That is why I think that it is very fishy that she had an IT firm scrub here server but left some stuff on it. It makes it appear as if she is hiding something. It could totally be innocent and she didn't want to spend the time to sort out junk from important stuff. Either way all politicians from here on out will be a lot more cognizant of how they handle private accounts while in office. From the DoD side of the house regulation of classified information is extremely rigorous, and there are very very harsh penalties for violating OPSEC. You would think that Sec of State would have advisors to keep them in line with the protocols of handling classified information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purdue97
And to be clear, I wish there was a better alternative to Clinton. But Bernie is not electable in a GE IMO, and she's WAY better an alternative than any member of the Clown Car for me. But that's always the problem when one party holds the WH for two terms...the bench gets dusty. Hillary is KIND of like a VP-type figure in the party, and I suppose she's better than Biden (more liberal, less prone to gaffe (although it's close)).

I wish there was another Obama out there who could come along and continue to build on the momentum, but if there is one, they are blocked out by Hillary's shadow. Having said that choosing between her and the right is a no-brainer for me.

Bernie has a much more solid platform and seems to actually believe what he says. Hilary comes across as an entertainer (much like Bill) and says stuff to liven up her audience. She has the charisma, Bernie has the actual ideology and the plan to go with it. My career path has me dreading another Obama because the situation we embraced in the Middle East has turned into a nightmare. The battle against ISIS has been a joke for the most part and now its grown into something so complicated that enemies are turning into allies and allies into enemies. The violence has now spread further into the region and there appears to no plan. NPR (which is a little left of center) is what I normally listen to and though the reports from them are almost always gloomy you don't hear about the situation in the national spotlight. We were trying to help the "moderate" rebels but who they were was never clear and we allowed ourselves to get half way committed into a situation we were not ready to handle. So millions and millions are being spent to keep a contingency force there, but their efforts are half hearted at best. From inside sources its flat out a joke. Also inside sources about Ukraine were painting a very very poor picture of what is actually going on there and how the US and NATO are pulling the strings to keep things as cool as possible is pretty disturbing. I think a national media source has actually released the story so I now feel ok to talk about it.

We left Iraq in awful shape and Afghanistan is even worse off, from my side of things it has always seemed that Obama has appeared just wish those things would go away. Not really committed, but more or less damage control. Whether he liked it or not he inherited those conflicts and just tried to make them go away as quietly as possible. In my honest opinion a lot of senior people should be fired or punished for what has transpired in Afghanistan. A lot of very good people, people I knew well, have died there and the more time that passes it seems like it was all for nothing.

The best candidate on the Right in my opinion is Ben Carson, probably the smartest of the entire field. However our country doesn't seem to like smart people calling the shots, they want entertainers and loud mouths who wow the audiences.
 
Bernie has a much more solid platform and seems to actually believe what he says. Hilary comes across as an entertainer (much like Bill) and says stuff to liven up her audience. She has the charisma, Bernie has the actual ideology and the plan to go with it. My career path has me dreading another Obama because the situation we embraced in the Middle East has turned into a nightmare. The battle against ISIS has been a joke for the most part and now its grown into something so complicated that enemies are turning into allies and allies into enemies. The violence has now spread further into the region and there appears to no plan. NPR (which is a little left of center) is what I normally listen to and though the reports from them are almost always gloomy you don't hear about the situation in the national spotlight. We were trying to help the "moderate" rebels but who they were was never clear and we allowed ourselves to get half way committed into a situation we were not ready to handle. So millions and millions are being spent to keep a contingency force there, but their efforts are half hearted at best. From inside sources its flat out a joke. Also inside sources about Ukraine were painting a very very poor picture of what is actually going on there and how the US and NATO are pulling the strings to keep things as cool as possible is pretty disturbing. I think a national media source has actually released the story so I now feel ok to talk about it.

We left Iraq in awful shape and Afghanistan is even worse off, from my side of things it has always seemed that Obama has appeared just wish those things would go away. Not really committed, but more or less damage control. Whether he liked it or not he inherited those conflicts and just tried to make them go away as quietly as possible. In my honest opinion a lot of senior people should be fired or punished for what has transpired in Afghanistan. A lot of very good people, people I knew well, have died there and the more time that passes it seems like it was all for nothing.

The best candidate on the Right in my opinion is Ben Carson, probably the smartest of the entire field. However our country doesn't seem to like smart people calling the shots, they want entertainers and loud mouths who wow the audiences.

I dont agree with much of that.

Hillary has charisma?? That's one of her biggest problems. That and she isn't liberal enough for the white progressive folks not to reject her. I think Hillary believes what she says. Sure, Bernie comes across as more credible because he goes full Honey Badger on not caring about the optics of what he says, and yes a percentage love that, but a larger percentage will not vote for him because his policies are too liberal for too many people who vote (or at least will be effectively characterized that way in the GE).

His refusal to take PAC money and corporate money is great, but stupid because he will not be able to compete with a billion dollar plus funded republican nominee.

Ben Carson is the smartest?

Comparing Obamacare to slavery (the worst thing that happened since)?
Comparing Dems and America to NAZI Germany?
Saying Obama might declare martial law and cancel the 2016 elections?
Saying that after taking AP History, folks will be ready to join ISIS?
This ridiculous quote on evolution:
"And why did evolution divert in so many directions–birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans–if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn’t everything a human–a superior human?"

Let's not even talk about the fact that he experimented on fetal tissues while decrying experimentation on fetal tissues because when he did it, "it was different."

I'm sorry, the idea that Ben Carson is the "smartest" or best candidate is head-shaking. And no, it's not because he's an uber-conservative. I can't stand Cruz or Walker, but they are way smarter, and way better as candidates than Carson.

Great neurosurgeon, no doubt...he should have stuck to his wheelhouse.
 
I dont agree with much of that.

Hillary has charisma?? That's one of her biggest problems. That and she isn't liberal enough for the white progressive folks not to reject her. I think Hillary believes what she says. Sure, Bernie comes across as more credible because he goes full Honey Badger on not caring about the optics of what he says, and yes a percentage love that, but a larger percentage will not vote for him because his policies are too liberal for too many people who vote (or at least will be effectively characterized that way in the GE).

His refusal to take PAC money and corporate money is great, but stupid because he will not be able to compete with a billion dollar plus funded republican nominee.

Ben Carson is the smartest?

Comparing Obamacare to slavery (the worst thing that happened since)?
Comparing Dems and America to NAZI Germany?
Saying Obama might declare martial law and cancel the 2016 elections?
Saying that after taking AP History, folks will be ready to join ISIS?
This ridiculous quote on evolution:
"And why did evolution divert in so many directions–birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans–if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn’t everything a human–a superior human?"

Let's not even talk about the fact that he experimented on fetal tissues while decrying experimentation on fetal tissues because when he did it, "it was different."

I'm sorry, the idea that Ben Carson is the "smartest" or best candidate is head-shaking. And no, it's not because he's an uber-conservative. I can't stand Cruz or Walker, but they are way smarter, and way better as candidates than Carson.

Great neurosurgeon, no doubt...he should have stuck to his wheelhouse.

I agree that Clinton has little charisma. O also agree that she believes littleof what she says. Just been a politician to long. That said, slam Carson for his quotes, but Obama just said something real similar lateley in comparing Iran hardliners(re: terrorists) and US politicians that do not support the Iranian deal. Like it or not(unfortunately IMO) that is what seems to work in politics.
 
And to be clear, I wish there was a better alternative to Clinton. But Bernie is not electable in a GE IMO, and she's WAY better an alternative than any member of the Clown Car for me. But that's always the problem when one party holds the WH for two terms...the bench gets dusty. Hillary is KIND of like a VP-type figure in the party, and I suppose she's better than Biden (more liberal, less prone to gaffe (although it's close)).

I wish there was another Obama out there who could come along and continue to build on the momentum, but if there is one, they are blocked out by Hillary's shadow. Having said that choosing between her and the right is a no-brainer for me.

I think Bernie could be electable vs Trump, Cruz, Carson, or Huckabee. All depends who you run against.
 
I think Bernie could be electable vs Trump, Cruz, Carson, or Huckabee. All depends who you run against.

But the last three have no chance of being nominated IMO. Trump has a tiny chance, and yes, if it's Bernie/Trump then Bernie probably wins that one.

But more likely it's going to be Bush, Rubio, Walker (there's a reason those are the only three names Hillary has spoken about in the context of a GE matchup).

I think Bernie would lose a close election to any of those three. I like Bernie. I'd vote for him. But being a declared socialist is going to be a big problem in enough parts of the country to make him nearly unelectable.

He'll get the blue states, but hardly any of the purple ones. He'll lose VA, FL, OH, PA, CO, NV, NC, and maybe NM IMO. It would be close in Iowa. If he were about 15% less liberal, I'd say he would be the best candidate, better than Hillary. But he's not been really attacked thus far, because he hasn't been taken THAT seriously so far.

If he were the nominee that would change quite quickly...and unlike Obama, he actually IS a socialist.
 
If SHE deleted actual classified emails, as in emails that she knew was classified, and that there is no dispute were classified and not retroactively classified? Then that would be a crime, and she'd have been guilty of lying...so she'd probably have to drop out of the race, and she could be facing prosecution. I don't see how she could stay in at that point, and her support would crater. We'd all be "feeling the Bern" because he'd be the Dem nominee. So my position about her would change because it would actually be, in that scenario, what folks on the right want it to be...an actual crime + lying.

If it's one of those, one department thinks it should be, and another department thinks it shouldn't be, and maybe it came from open source or maybe it came from classified, like what we have now? Then I maintain my present position.

If folks want to say it was dumb in hindsight to have done the personal emails system thing...I suspect she'd wholeheartedly agree. The whole "that alone disqualifies her" thought process is pure partisanship. But as it stands right now, there's no evidence she sent classified emails, and sketchy evidence she ever received any, and no evidence she knowingly did so or knowingly deleted any.


Well that is a real qualified statement about classified material. If a govt agency or dept with classification authorization determines something is classified and under their agency/dept, it gets that designation until 1) it gets declassified by that dept 2) or after 25 years or so it is automatically declassified in a lot of cases. There is not this dept said this but this dept disagrees nonsense. So, as this relates to Clinton, if Intel Community classified something it is irrelevant if she disagreed with its classification.

There are also rules and laws about the type of server, how it is secured, and how the actual server is sent by transportation. Unfortunately, as of now, she wiped it or had it wiped clean clean, and had it sent to a non government contractor with no security clearances, who put it in a garage of all places-so yes, at the very least there are some serious red flags here.
 
But the last three have no chance of being nominated IMO. Trump has a tiny chance, and yes, if it's Bernie/Trump then Bernie probably wins that one.

But more likely it's going to be Bush, Rubio, Walker (there's a reason those are the only three names Hillary has spoken about in the context of a GE matchup).

I think Bernie would lose a close election to any of those three. I like Bernie. I'd vote for him. But being a declared socialist is going to be a big problem in enough parts of the country to make him nearly unelectable.

He'll get the blue states, but hardly any of the purple ones. He'll lose VA, FL, OH, PA, CO, NV, NC, and maybe NM IMO. It would be close in Iowa. If he were about 15% less liberal, I'd say he would be the best candidate, better than Hillary. But he's not been really attacked thus far, because he hasn't been taken THAT seriously so far.

If he were the nominee that would change quite quickly...and unlike Obama, he actually IS a socialist.

The reason I think Cruz, Carson, and Huckabee have a chance is that when one or two fall out I think the other get most of the consolidation. They have all made moves and I think they are all above 8% now. Cruz and Huckabee are pretty far right. Carson is a new comer but he is doing well with far right. Sure Bernie is far left and that disqualifies some states but I think being to far right does too.
 
Well that is a real qualified statement about classified material. If a govt agency or dept with classification authorization determines something is classified and under their agency/dept, it gets that designation until 1) it gets declassified by that dept 2) or after 25 years or so it is automatically declassified in a lot of cases. There is not this dept said this but this dept disagrees nonsense. So, as this relates to Clinton, if Intel Community classified something it is irrelevant if she disagreed with its classification.

There are also rules and laws about the type of server, how it is secured, and how the actual server is sent by transportation. Unfortunately, as of now, she wiped it or had it wiped clean clean, and had it sent to a non government contractor with no security clearances, who put it in a garage of all places-so yes, at the very least there are some serious red flags here.

I know you, and others, want to make this real simple, real black and white, and real broad...because by doing so, it makes it easier to find Clinton guilty of a crime. but it isn't. Evidence can be retroactively classified, and yes different agencies can disagree, as State and the IC are right now as to whether material is or isn't, and it can be difficult to tell whether information comes from a non-classified, public and open source, or it comes from a classified secret source.

And that last bit is what this is all about. You have information that could have come from either, but nothing that has a label classified on it, or that can be clearly traced back to something that could only have come from something protected vice CNN.

Yeah there are laws about using public email servers as she did, but those laws did not apply at the time she was SoS just like they didn't apply to prior SoS. If Kerry did this, he'd be subject to those laws.

So yes, I want it to be actual classified material, not maybe it came from a classified source but maybe not, and not it was retroactively classified.

Cruz has no chance because his own party hates him. Your nominee needs to be able to bring the party together. They hate him with a blinding hot passion because he throws any and all of them under the bus to further his own political ambition. Carson has no chance because I can't even begin to count the ways. Huckabee isn't even running to actually win, he's doing it for the benefits that come from it. And putting forward that a 10 year old (or whatever age she was) should be forced to carry a child to term is extreme even for the republicans (not by much, but enough that he won't win the nomination).'

Your putative Cruzarsonabee candidate would be a lot like Trump...they might consolidate 25% of the vote, but not much more than that.
 
I know you, and others, want to make this real simple, real black and white, and real broad...because by doing so, it makes it easier to find Clinton guilty of a crime. but it isn't. Evidence can be retroactively classified, and yes different agencies can disagree, as State and the IC are right now as to whether material is or isn't, and it can be difficult to tell whether information comes from a non-classified, public and open source, or it comes from a classified secret source.

And that last bit is what this is all about. You have information that could have come from either, but nothing that has a label classified on it, or that can be clearly traced back to something that could only have come from something protected vice CNN.

Yeah there are laws about using public email servers as she did, but those laws did not apply at the time she was SoS just like they didn't apply to prior SoS. If Kerry did this, he'd be subject to those laws.

So yes, I want it to be actual classified material, not maybe it came from a classified source but maybe not, and not it was retroactively classified.

Cruz has no chance because his own party hates him. Your nominee needs to be able to bring the party together. They hate him with a blinding hot passion because he throws any and all of them under the bus to further his own political ambition. Carson has no chance because I can't even begin to count the ways. Huckabee isn't even running to actually win, he's doing it for the benefits that come from it. And putting forward that a 10 year old (or whatever age she was) should be forced to carry a child to term is extreme even for the republicans (not by much, but enough that he won't win the nomination).'

Your putative Cruzarsonabee candidate would be a lot like Trump...they might consolidate 25% of the vote, but not much more than that.

I would just say that in my post I stated that at the least this is a lot of red flags. I do not ever think I said she was guilty. It does appear with all of the actions she took that it does appear that she is hiding something and his needs to be looked into.

While agencies/departments may disagree on what should or should not be classified, if one classifies it, it is classified, and that dept declassifies it.

Cruz/Huckabee/Carson winner is a longshot. That said, consolidating 25% of the vote right now for Republicans puts one in good position.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT