Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you) (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=788657)

adaher 06-25-2016 08:18 AM

Well, there are new revelations seemingly weekly. Wonder why she didn't just dump all this months ago?

elucidator 06-25-2016 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19431961)
Clinton's approval is 42-55. I think it's pretty safe to say that voters have had some issues with her conduct.

Ah! So, there in the very middlest middle of the main steam, we find addy, the pearl of centrism!

Of the people who disapprove of Hillary, how many are just hopping mad about the horror of e-mails? I rather disapprove of Hillary, but will likely vote for her. I disapprove of acne, but prefer it to smallpox.

But we thank you for your concern! We'll take it from here. Relax, put your feet up, have a nice cuppa.

iiandyiiii 06-25-2016 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19432196)
It's dishonest in that it doesn't change anything about the morality of what she did. If you don't have a problem with it now, you should stand by her if she's indicted.

Bullshit. My support for her has nothing to do with her integrity or morality and everything to do with her policies compared to Trump. It's not dishonest at all to support her while she's still got a great chance to win, but to advocate for a different nominee of she is indicted which would strongly damage her chances to win.

So stop with this bullshit criticism.

adaher 06-25-2016 09:39 AM

You have no idea what her policies will be. She's flip flopped on nearly everything in order to beat Sanders. Maybe the ethical problems are a smart strategy of some sort. Distracts from the fact that she's the biggest flip-flopper in Presidential campaigning history. That would be THE story if not for the ethics problems.

iiandyiiii 06-25-2016 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19432425)
You have no idea what her policies will be. She's flip flopped on nearly everything in order to beat Sanders. Maybe the ethical problems are a smart strategy of some sort. Distracts from the fact that she's the biggest flip-flopper in Presidential campaigning history. That would be THE story if not for the ethics problems.

Bullshit. She's always supported an increase to the MW; she's always supported infrastructure spending; she's always supported universal health care; she's always supported SS and food stamps and other assistance programs... The details may have changed a little on some of these issues, but domestically we have a very good idea of how she will govern: somewhere in between Bill Clinton and Obama. In foreign policy there is a little more vague and altered positions, but she's still been much more consistent and coherent than Trump, not that this is a high bar to clear.

John_Stamos'_Left_Ear 06-25-2016 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19432425)
You have no idea what her policies will be. She's flip flopped on nearly everything in order to beat Sanders.

Horseshit. Her record was more liberal than Obama and slightly "barely more moderate" than Sanders when they served together.

This is more of the bullshit that Republicans (and so-called Progressives) believe because of dogma but is not supported by the evidence.

watchwolf49 06-25-2016 03:34 PM

On the bright side, if Hillary is elected President, you can bet the farm she'll be completely up-tight with security discipline from here on out ... hoe boy ... I think she's learned her lesson alrighty ...

Johnny Ace 06-25-2016 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19431961)
Clinton's approval is 42-55. I think it's pretty safe to say that voters have had some issues with her conduct.

Which, of course, is an indicator of absolute truth. Just ask the runners of the Republican mudslinging machine.

elucidator 06-25-2016 04:38 PM

I knew people capable of tying their shoes or making their own oatmeal who thought Nixon wasn't lying.

Corry El 06-25-2016 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 19431618)
1. No they don't.

2. Yes there is.

Very broad but succinct, and absurd, responses.
The original statements:
1. Senior people have some responsibility to recognize sensitive information themselves.


2. There isn't some authority above all of them saying what it is or isn't

1. Hillary and someone at the CIA would have no responsibility not to have a call discussing the names of senior US moles in a hostile government on a regular cell phone? What they say on that call wasn't 'previously stamped classified', but obviously they have a responsibility not to do that. The idea of the system and the law is to protect sensitive information, not to follow a particular rote procedure. In some cases that could cut in favor of a person accused of a violation. But to say there's no such responsibility is ridiculous.

2. Senior officials responsible for areas of the executive branch and ultimately the head of the branch, ie the President, have input to classification decisions. Again this could cut both ways. For example at times Presidents have been accused of 'leaking classified information' when it leaks from the WH for apparently political purposes. But the President can declassify whatever he wants to. It's a question of whether it's responsible, not legal. The Secy of State doesn't have that full latitude, and could run into legal problems. But the idea that classification is decided on a level of authority above everybody is self evidently ridiculous.

ElvisL1ves 06-26-2016 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19432273)
Well, there are new revelations seemingly weekly.

No, it's the same old desperate trivial bullshit repeated weekly.

adaher 06-26-2016 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Ace (Post 19433102)
Which, of course, is an indicator of absolute truth. Just ask the runners of the Republican mudslinging machine.

The NY Times? The Obama State Department?

Lobohan 06-26-2016 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19435717)
The NY Times? The Obama State Department?

What has she been convicted of again? What actual evidence do you have?

The GOP throws tantrums and does nonstop investigations because they're evil cunts. The fact that with the keys to the subpoenas, all they've ever been able to throw against her is nonsense like, "email-gate" means Clinton is fantastically above-board.

GIGObuster 06-26-2016 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19435717)
The NY Times? The Obama State Department?

The New York Times has a history of also getting into the mud when Clinton is the subject. And the State Department Report is about rules, not laws. What I noted is that no punishment or recommendation of it was in there. But that she was slammed for what she admitted that it was a mistake is clear.

One thing I do note here too, for all that Clinton AFAIK has not banned the NTY from her campaign; Trump, in a move that not even Nixon did, has banished several news groups from covering his campaign.

adaher 06-27-2016 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobohan (Post 19435843)
What has she been convicted of again? What actual evidence do you have?

The GOP throws tantrums and does nonstop investigations because they're evil cunts. The fact that with the keys to the subpoenas, all they've ever been able to throw against her is nonsense like, "email-gate" means Clinton is fantastically above-board.

Trump hasn't been convicted of anything, therefore he's never done anything wrong. All allegations against him are obviously made up.

GIGObuster 06-27-2016 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19435959)
Trump hasn't been convicted of anything, therefore he's never done anything wrong. All allegations against him are obviously made up.

I think you have it backwards, all allegations made by Trump about himself are obviously made up. :)

bengangmo 06-27-2016 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19432107)
Oh, I know they just want to win. And sure, at the convention they can change the candidate, and I think they should.

But a criminal charge doesn't change what she did, and don't think we won't take advantage of the Democratic Party's powers that be almost unanimous unconcern with her actions should she get indicted after the convention. If I steal a pack of gum from a store, I stole it whether or not they decide to charge me. I'm a petty thief either way.

Frankly speaking -
All this talking isn't worth anything.

How long has this investigation been going on for now? You really think that after so long, Clinton will be indicted prior to the election?

There is totally ZERO chance of that happening now and the chances become less after the convention. In exactly the same way that the Trump U case won't be heard before the election, or any of the other myriad of things perculating about Donald's malfeasance. (no the Tax Dept will NOT make any comment on his returns - clean or otherwise, prior to the election either)

The only thing that can happen right now is an unequivocal statement that there will not be an indictment - that the investigation is being closed with recommendations of future procedures but no further action being taken against anyone. (and if this does happen, there will, of course, but 179 investigations after she becomes president)

bengangmo 06-27-2016 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19431885)
Lack of transparency in a politician is proof of wrongdoing to the majority of the electorate. This isn't a trial. It's an election. We expect more than merely technical compliance with the law.

Working on that basis - are there any activities of Trump's that you view as "technical" compliance with the law and that should disqualify him?

adaher 06-27-2016 01:13 AM

Trump is already disqualified. 70% of voters don't like him. Clinton is also disqualified. 55% don't like her. So the question is, who will get a small plurality and sneak into the White House through the back door?

ElvisL1ves 06-27-2016 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19431885)
Lack of transparency in a politician is proof of wrongdoing to the majority of the electorate.

It is certainly easy to spin it that way to people who are desperate to find something to support a basic partisan hatred, yes.

Quote:

We expect more than merely technical compliance with the law.
And that's really what you're reduced to now, isn't it? Finding a way to spin compliance with the law as a character flaw. :p

Lobohan 06-27-2016 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 19436113)
It is certainly easy to spin it that way to people who are desperate to find something to support a basic partisan hatred, yes.

And that's really what you're reduced to now, isn't it? Finding a way to spin compliance with the law as a character flaw. :p

It is so pathetic, that it's difficult to accept it's serious.

Any other human subjected to the level of scrutiny that Hill-Dawg has been subjected to would be found wanting. She didn't break any laws. She didn't do anything wrong. Just because a lot of lying scumbags on the right, and a lot of gullible, passionate Sanders supporters on the left, retweet a bunch of the same nonsense, fact-deprived polemics, doesn't make them true.

adaher 06-27-2016 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves (Post 19436113)
It is certainly easy to spin it that way to people who are desperate to find something to support a basic partisan hatred, yes.

And that's really what you're reduced to now, isn't it? Finding a way to spin compliance with the law as a character flaw. :p

SHe didn't actually comply with the law fully, but it often takes more than that to secure an indictment. She's already claiming she "lost" emails that Abedin had. That's a violation of recordskeeping laws, but probably not worth indicting her over because you can't prove that it was done with intent to break the law.

But if you want to assume incompetence, that's fine too.

Lobohan 06-27-2016 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19436122)
SHe didn't actually comply with the law fully, but it often takes more than that to secure an indictment.

Specifically. In detail, please. Present your evidence. What indictment are they right on the border of?

Quote:

She's already claiming she "lost" emails that Abedin had. That's a violation of recordskeeping laws, but probably not worth indicting her over because you can't prove that it was done with intent to break the law.
It's a production error. When you search and copy 50k emails, sometimes one gets lost in the shuffle. No one in their right mind would call that a violation of law.

Quote:

But if you want to assume incompetence, that's fine too.
It's not incompetence for one email to go missing or be deleted by accident. Especially when another copy of it exists on your assistant's computer files.

adaher 06-27-2016 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobohan (Post 19436130)
Specifically. In detail, please. Present your evidence. What indictment are they right on the border of?

She did not actually turn over all work emails. And the ones she didn't turn over just happened, by pure coincidence, to be slightly embarrassing.

Quote:

It's not incompetence for one email to go missing or be deleted by accident. Especially when another copy of it exists on your assistant's computer files.
I think it's pretty obvious that email wasn't intended to ever be made public. I think most of the public draws similar conclusions. She was being shady.

She simply wanted to control what the public saw.

Lobohan 06-27-2016 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19436134)
She did not actually turn over all work emails. And the ones she didn't turn over just happened, by pure coincidence, to be slightly embarrassing.

Her statement was that she directed them to be turned over. If the techs who sifted them missed one, how is that a crime on her part?

Quote:

I think it's pretty obvious that email wasn't intended to ever be made public. I think most of the public draws similar conclusions. She was being shady.

She simply wanted to control what the public saw.
Well, if someone who hates Hillary with a passion finds it obvious, I suppose I don't need to see any evidence.

iiandyiiii 06-27-2016 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19436002)
Trump is already disqualified. 70% of voters don't like him. Clinton is also disqualified. 55% don't like her. So the question is, who will get a small plurality and sneak into the White House through the back door?

"Disqualified" is silly nonsense. Plenty of people don't like Hillary but are happy to vote for her.

elucidator 06-27-2016 09:10 AM

The going-around is the coming-around. Twenty years of intense scrutiny have made Hillary a functional paranoid, the kind that isn't crazy and has real enemies eager to exploit anything they can get their hands on. Even if they can't. She not only had to review her options in terms of what a reasonable person might think, but in terms of what a raving loon might think.

If your Mom or my Mom had been subjected to the same treatment, we would be opening an internet post telling us that she was the Whore of Babylon with full color photos of the Cups of Her Fornications. Not mine, I'm real sure. Maybe yours, but I doubt it.

Johnny Ace 06-27-2016 01:32 PM

Next up, the GOP Benghazi report. Any bets who it will blame directly?

JohnT 06-27-2016 01:51 PM

I would bet Hillary but I would probably have to lay down $500 to earn $1, and with my luck today they would probably blame Obama. :p

elucidator 06-27-2016 03:06 PM

500 to 1? Well, let me think. Put down a hundred, Trump wins, maybe enough money to buy some property in Canada. I hear it makes it easier. Only about four hours from the border, can probably get across before the Canadians close it. Start building their Wall....

JohnT 06-27-2016 03:11 PM

Well, $100 down at 500:1 odds still is only $50k. I don't know how much land $50k in suddenly devalued American currency will get you in Canada, but you may wish to hedge your bet by an order of magnitude. ;)

ElvisL1ves 06-27-2016 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19436134)
She did not actually turn over all work emails. And the ones she didn't turn over just happened, by pure coincidence, to be slightly embarrassing.

So you're saying she didn't have the ambassador killed like Vince Foster after all? ;)

We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you. You are laughing, aren't you? No? Uh oh.

sleestak 06-27-2016 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobohan (Post 19436143)
Her statement was that she directed them to be turned over. If the techs who sifted them missed one, how is that a crime on her part?.

First, a 'tech' didn't sift through her email. Clintons lawyers did. At least understand what happened before the knee-jerk dismissal.

Second, it is Clintons responsibility to turn over the emails. Period. Had she used authorized systems we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since she didn't use the State systems, it is her responsibility to ensure all emails are turned over, regardless of who she picked to sort the emails.

Slee

Kolak of Twilo 07-05-2016 10:33 AM

No charges in email "scandal".

FBI Director Comey said this:
Quote:

Although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
(WARNING: Auto Play ad there. Sorry!)

JohnT 07-05-2016 10:39 AM

Quote:

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said.
And there it is.

GIGObuster 07-05-2016 10:50 AM

And after all the accusations of being wrong (also in the Benghazi "scandal") and that one should not trust those outfits like Talking Points Memo, MediaMatters, Slate or Salon it turns out that most of the experts they consulted were correct.

Of course the record elsewere will show that, as usual, the ones using right wing media sources will either forget that they were had when the "experts" they consulted or the talking heads told then that Hillary should go to prision for this; or those consumers of misinformation will never bother to demand better from outfits like FOX, Breitbart, Drudge, World nut Net Daily and many others that misguided them and will continue to do so.

adaher 07-05-2016 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo (Post 19454917)
No charges in email "scandal".

FBI Director Comey said this:


(WARNING: Auto Play ad there. Sorry!)

No need for quotes around scandal. Comey said she was extremely careless in handling classified information. Things turned out exactly as I expected: no charges, but a pretty scathing statement from yet another impartial source.

Truman Burbank 07-05-2016 11:40 AM

So, Addy, was it, or was it not, a scandal when Powell and Rice both did the same thing?

adaher 07-05-2016 11:45 AM

No, it was not. Neither set up a private server to evade FOIA requirements, and neither lied about what they had done after the fact. Clinton has only revealed things as they've been found out. CAll it the Blue Dress Doctrine: never admit anything until it's already discovered.

Kolak of Twilo 07-05-2016 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19455106)
No, it was not. Neither set up a private server to evade FOIA requirements, and neither lied about what they had done after the fact. Clinton has only revealed things as they've been found out. CAll it the Blue Dress Doctrine: never admit anything until it's already discovered.

Only a scandal when it's a Clinton is the lesson here.

adaher 07-05-2016 12:02 PM

No, only a scandal when you lie about it is the lesson here. Remember the old adage, it's not the scandal, it's the coverup? Scandals have a tendency to go away when people come clean about them.

Truman Burbank 07-05-2016 12:12 PM

So, there was no problem with way Clinton, Rice and Powell ran their servers when they were SOS? Oh, I see, only when Clinton did it, that was different.

Sam Stone 07-05-2016 12:19 PM

Rice and Powell did not 'run servers'. Only Clinton had a private E-mail server. And I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone accusing Rice or Powell of transmitting classified data through their public E-mail accounts.

adaher 07-05-2016 12:27 PM

The IG report said that Powell did. Rice did not. But Powell also never denied anything. He cooperated completely with the IG investigation. Clinton did not.

Kolak of Twilo 07-05-2016 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19455164)
No, only a scandal when you lie about it is the lesson here.

If she had lied to the FBI about this she would have been indicted for perjury as I understand things, so again - only a scandal when it's a Clinton. If your last name is Powell, not so much.

adaher 07-05-2016 12:34 PM

She didn't lie to the FBI, she lied to the public. That's what caused the plunge in her approval rating. Instead of coming clean, she clammed up and just let the story drip out over months, with each new revelation further damaging her standing.

To the extent the Clintons are treated differently, it is because they think their actions are none of your business. Even their supporters have shaken their heads about their entitlement issues.

rat avatar 07-05-2016 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Stone (Post 19455217)
Rice and Powell did not 'run servers'. Only Clinton had a private E-mail server. And I may be wrong, but I don't recall anyone accusing Rice or Powell of transmitting classified data through their public E-mail accounts.

Not a huge Hillary fan, mostly because she is way to conservative with social rights but the "classified" items she sent were not at the time she sent them. It was still a very stupid thing to do but it is very typical for everyone to try and avoid IT. But even the FBI has cleared her of sending known classified material and Powell just didn't get caught.

Ravenman 07-05-2016 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 19455248)
The IG report said that Powell did. Rice did not. But Powell also never denied anything. He cooperated completely with the IG investigation. Clinton did not.

Conservative logic: Powell turns over nothing and cooperates "completely." Uh-huh.

adaher 07-05-2016 12:57 PM

He did what was asked. Obviously he didn't keep that email account in the 12 years since he left office. And his reasoning for getting one was that he couldn't email people outside the government.

Clinton did what she did to evade FOIA.

Richard Parker 07-05-2016 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat avatar (Post 19455281)
... but the "classified" items she sent were not at the time she sent them.

This is another example of a talking point that has long-since been rebutted.

Here's the FBI on this subject:

Quote:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
(emphasis mine)

I don't blame you for not knowing this. It is a function of our broken political and media environment. But all of us should do a better job being skeptical of factual claims in circumstances where we know there is lots of incentive to spin and bend the truth.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.