Hillary Clintons Emails

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#26

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:54 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:27 pm
neeneko wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:10 pm
Slartibartfast wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:39 pm
It’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the coverup. The coverup got her. Just like it got her husband. Ask yourselves what it will take to convince you to change your minds about Hillary Clinton. I believe that she has far exceeded any rational standard, but maybe one of you can come up with a standard that she passes but which doens’t Let Trump off the hook, because I can’t.
I think it would be more accurate to say the perception of cover up got her, not the 'coverup'.

Nope. She deleted emails. That’s a coverup. It doesn’t matter whether or not there was anything to cover up, once you’ve tried to cover it up you’ve crossed the line. This isn’t about perception, it’s the agreed upon facts that are in and of themselves damning.

Yes, the emails were not deleted till after the subpoena. The sorting and deleting policy change were from well before then though. A careless IT staffer did not get around to it till someone brought it up, and did not inform people further up the chain that they had not completed a task assigned to them months ago.

Which means that, when the subpoena was ordered (which was after the coverup was ordered) there was still a chance to reverse the decision. Did Hillary even try? Should Hillary be commended for making the decision before a subpoena came? Shouldn’t a politician of her stature have known that a subpoena was likely? How does any of this mitigate the deletion of information relevant to the inquiry?
I don't think there was reason to expect a subpoena for the entirety of her personal email at the time the deletion decision was made. The decision to launch a full-scale Congressional investigation into the use of the private server well after she had left office was a substantial stretch, even given the irrational Republican hatred for all things Clinton. So, no, I don't think she should have known that a subpoena of such breadth that it would almost certainly not survived had it been issued in litigation was likely.

A violation of the records preservation regulations in effect when the email account was being used was, as I've said, bad. But it's not (at least to my knowledge) criminal; expecting Congress to launch a full-out, millions-of-dollars-in-expenses investigation of that issue is a bit much. Anticipating that they would take that investigation to the point of demanding to personally review every email sent or received goes beyond even that. And the whole "classified information" thing was a stroke of evil genius on the part of the Republicans, but also not predictable.

And as far as the "chance to reverse the decision" was concerned, I don't think Clinton had any obligation to try and find out if it was possible. She was probably entitled to presume that her vendor was not negligent, and it's only negligence on the part of the vendor that left anything intact at the point when the subpoena was issued.

So:
1: There was no reason for Clinton to try to reverse the decision.
2: The decision to have her lawyers cull the personal emails rather than allowing State or Archives to be part of that decision wasn't admirable. It was arrogant and ran counter to at least the spirit, and probably the letter, of the records preservation regulations. But it wasn't criminal in and of itself.
3: She shouldn't have known a subpoena was likely.
4: At the time the decision to delete data was made, I don't think there was an ongoing or reasonably predictable inquiry that would have made the information she deleted relevant.
Edit: The decision to delete the personal may very well have been made to prevent anything in there from being used against her in any way, particularly politically, in the event that it was somehow subpoenaed or otherwise obtained by an organization likely to leak everything in there (inclduing things like her daughter's wedding plans). But deleting personally and politically embarrassing material, although a catastrophically unwise decision in this instance, is not illegal in and of itself.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#27

Post by Suranis » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:35 am

I'll just remind everyone of the "private testimony" that Bill Clinton gave in a recorded interview. to be shown only to a grand Jury, and which was only recorded because a couple of grand jurors could not make it that day, that wound up broadcast on national television world wide after Ken Starr possibly illegally released it because fuck Clinton.

If she had given over her entire server to outside people we would all be privy to every fucking one of her private emails and what she said out of context in 10 of them, and certain people would all be talking about how stupid she was in doing that and how what she should have done was just allow her personal lawyers to separate them out.

No matter what she does, Hillary Clinton cannot win.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#28

Post by Suranis » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:50 am

Also, as I just saw pointed out on Facebook, she polled about the same numbers as one Barack H Obama did in 2012.

Image

Image


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#29

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:00 am

Suranis wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:50 am
Also, as I just saw pointed out on Facebook, she polled about the same numbers as one Barack H Obama did in 2012.
1: That and $4.50 will get her a Pumpkin Spice Latte.
2: She pulled in about the same raw numbers. But as a percentage, she pulled in considerably less - 48.2% to Obama's 51.1%.
3: And, of course, Obama got his votes in the right places.

I'm sorry, but saying that she got about as many votes as Obama did in 2012 is not convincing evidence that she was a good candidate. And, honestly, I think there's plenty of evidence, including from both of her Senate wins, that she simply wasn't ever a great candidate. A few things to consider in that regard:

1: She consistently did better in popularity polls when she was in a job than when she was running for office.
2: Her first Senate win came with nearly identical numbers to Schumer's first win two years earlier. Except that Schumer was running against a longtime incumbent, while she was running for an open seat, against a downstate Republican with virtually no name recognition, who had entered the race late after Guiliani's implosion.
3: She and Schumer both ran for reelection against relative non-entities. But Schumer did 4 points better, despite the fact that he ran for reelection in pro-Republican 2004, and she was up in the Democratic wave election of 2006.
4: She spent most of the time she was a Senator prepping to run for President, but lost the 2008 primary to someone who had zero name recognition as recently as early 2004.

There are plenty of reasons for the underperformance. Many of these reasons, including sexism and her difficulty defusing and refuting Republican demonization, weren't her fault. But while that might explain why she was not a great candidate, that doesn't make her objectively better as a candidate.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#30

Post by Suranis » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:30 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:00 am

2: She pulled in about the same raw numbers. But as a percentage, she pulled in considerably less - 48.2% to Obama's 51.1%.
3: And, of course, Obama got his votes in the right places.
Only because Trump, a guy who only cracked 50% of the vote in something like three Republican primaries, somehow THEN managed to become so popular among Republicans that he increased the GOP vote by over 2 million over McCain and Romney, in an election where the Democrats grabbed 51% of the vote. Now mysterious, just like its mysterious that somehow he flipped several Blue states that hadn't gone for a republican in years by JUST ENOUGH to avoid a recount. Now, I wonder if her vote in the swing states was the same as Obama's vote.

Who knew the guy was so popular to drive up Republican vote by 2 million. And damn right the fact that Hillary got the same vote as Obama (is important, as it shows that she didn't drive away voters like you are trying to insist. It means that Trumps Russian coughcough "Charisma" brought more "voters" to the polls. In means she was as good as 2012 Obama, who was no slouch. (In fact she got the second most amount of votes of any candidate ever)

And I'm sorry that I provided an opening for the topic to veer from "Hillarys' Emails" to "Hillary is shit in general." I should have known that's what you really wanted to talk about. Oh yeah and that Bills' grand Jury testimony getting "leaked" was not what you wanted to talk about.
Edit: Oh and before people weigh in with "well the Republicans hated Hillary enough to come out in droves," I'll just point out that Trump beat all the other contenders, every one of which were "I hate Hillary MORE!!" by being the one person who actually was not talking about Hillary that much, as it got in the way of talking about how great HE was.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#31

Post by Suranis » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:42 am

Oh and Hillary, the bad candidate, trashed "the most popular candidate ever" by 3.6 million votes, 11 states, and 1400 delegates. And the media somehow keep running to THAT guy for opinions. Go figure.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#32

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:01 am

Suranis wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:30 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:00 am

2: She pulled in about the same raw numbers. But as a percentage, she pulled in considerably less - 48.2% to Obama's 51.1%.
3: And, of course, Obama got his votes in the right places.
Only because Trump, a guy who only cracked 50% of the vote in something like three Republican primaries, somehow THEN managed to become so popular among Republicans that he increased the GOP vote by over 2 million over McCain and Romney, in an election where the Democrats grabbed 51% of the vote. Now mysterious, just like its mysterious that somehow he flipped several Blue states that hadn't gone for a republican in years by JUST ENOUGH to avoid a recount. Now, I wonder if her vote in the swing states was the same as Obama's vote.
She got about 64K fewer votes in PA than Obama did in 2012; almost 300K fewer in Michigan; about 240K fewer in Wisconsin. In all 3 states, Trump also was under Obama's 2012 totals; matching his count would have been enough to win all 3 and the election. (In fairness, she did outperform Obama's 2012 total by about 300K in Florida.) There was no surge in those places
Who knew the guy was so popular to drive up Republican vote by 2 million. And damn right the fact that Hillary got the same vote as Obama (is important, as it shows that she didn't drive away voters like you are trying to insist. It means that Trumps Russian coughcough "Charisma" brought more "voters" to the polls. In means she was as good as 2012 Obama, who was no slouch. (In fact she got the second most amount of votes of any candidate ever)
She would be "as good as 2012 Obama" if the population and turnout had both been constant from 20012 to 2016. They weren't. The voting age population increased by about 6 to 10 million (depending on estimate), and turnout went up by about 1% (which still left it under 2008 levels; there was about a 3% decline between 2008 and 2012.)

Trump's performance was, at best, marginally better than Romney - and that's arguable. His increase in raw numbers was not out of line with natural population increase, and he did worse than Romney in terms of the percentage of votes received. He won because he did slightly better than Romney in three specific states, where he put in a lot of effort, and Clinton did slightly worse than Obama in the exact same states.
And I'm sorry that I provided an opening for the topic to veer from "Hillarys' Emails" to "Hillary is shit in general." I should have known that's what you really wanted to talk about. Oh yeah and that Bills' grand Jury testimony getting "leaked" was not what you wanted to talk about.
Yes, you provided the opening. You decided to bring up popularity. I wouldn't have bothered - but I also don't see any reason to ignore it, particularly since I disagree with what you said. If you didn't want me to respond, you shouldn't have brought it up.

And as far as your point about the grand jury leaks go, you made both posts overnight, my time. I didn't jump right into the other post because I don't completely disagree with it - in fact, I said that deleting stuff that might be personally or politically embarrassing isn't illegal in and of itself.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Hillary Clintons Emails

#33

Post by MsDaisy » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:19 pm

This is going to be like Liberi v Taitz, the Clinton email scandal is never going to frigging die. And on top of that I’m seeing two very disturbing names re-surfaced on the forum...... Bachmann, and Willard! :shock: :cantlook: :swoon:

JEEBUS! It’s like being stuck in the Twilight Zone! :brickwallsmall:

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case
BY JOHN SOLOMON – THE HILL
Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.

For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken when the former secretary of State and her top aides transmitted classified information through her insecure private email server, lawmakers and investigators told The Hill.

That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said.

The name of the witness is redacted from the FBI documents but lawmakers said he was an employee of a computer firm that helped maintain her personal server after she left office as America’s top diplomat and who belatedly admitted he had permanently erased an archive of her messages in 2015 after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... andling-of


Birfers are toast

Post Reply

Return to “General Politics”