Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-08-2016, 12:35 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
We'll see if that's true come August or so. By then the national polls actually will have meaning, and Clinton will be in the clear by then, assuming she hasn't gotten her entitled self into more problems by bending the rules.
Speaking of meaning, I think the polling now has more meaning than in older contests, I do take into account here the polarization seen in the current environment and that leads IMHO to an early crystallization of what is coming in the general election, in the current environment I think that many are assuming that the polls will look like Carter vs Reagan,

http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/...lheats1980.png

When in reality they are looking more like Obama vs Romney.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...omney-vs-obama

What it is important to note IMO is that Obama usually maintained a 3 point lead over Romney and rarely was Obama ahead by more than 5, Clinton and Sanders have remained ahead by 9 or more points during the whole month of March in the aggregate over Trump.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-clinton

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-sanders

I still expect the media to make it into a horse race by any means necessary, so I also expect the polls to tighten but I expect also to see it end like the Obama vs Romney contest.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-08-2016 at 12:35 AM.
  #152  
Old 06-07-2016, 04:20 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,823

Revive!


Bernie supporters on my Facebook are screaming about how Obama is barring the release of Hillary's emails until after the election.

I Googled it and it's all the Right Wing Bubble websites who are not trustworthy and who do not deserve my clicks and other unreliable sources (in order they are International Business Times, Observer, BizPac Review, Daily Caller, PJ Media, a Huffington Post article penned by H.A. Goodman whose pro-Bernie bias renders him useless - the headline is "Why Hillary Clinton Could Face Indictments and How This Makes Bernie Sanders Nominee" - Fox News, etcetera).

Can someone tell me why I am supposed to be outraged?
  #153  
Old 06-07-2016, 04:27 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Well, if you're cool with nontransparency, even to the extent of destroying federal records....
  #154  
Old 06-07-2016, 04:33 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Bernie supporters on my Facebook are screaming about how Obama is barring the release of Hillary's emails until after the election.
I Googled it and it's all the Right Wing Bubble websites who are not trustworthy and who do not deserve my clicks and other unreliable sources (in order they are International Business Times, Observer, BizPac Review, Daily Caller, PJ Media, a Huffington Post article penned by H.A. Goodman whose pro-Bernie bias renders him useless - the headline is "Why Hillary Clinton Could Face Indictments and How This Makes Bernie Sanders Nominee" - Fox News, etcetera).

Can someone tell me why I am supposed to be outraged?
Well, the Sanders people just don't have much to work with. So inevitably the outrage seems a bit manufactured.

Sanders himself is reduced to saying, in essence, I Won't Suspend Because The People Must Be Allowed to Vote, and Then Super Delegates Must Ignore the Votes of the People (and nominate ME!!!!1!!) Democracy is very important and democracy is irrelevant to this process!

He's going to get dizzy from doing all that flipping.
  #155  
Old 06-07-2016, 04:52 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Well, if you're cool with nontransparency, even to the extent of destroying federal records....
There is no evidence she deleted federal records. She turned over thousands of government related emails, and deleted personal emails. Now, you may not believe her, but you can't just conclude there must have been official emails, because Hillary. Lots of Republicans have personal email accounts. Can they prove they never deleted a government related email? Why should Hillary be held to a different standard?
  #156  
Old 06-07-2016, 05:05 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
The IG report found a few emails that she didn't turn over that were work emails.
  #157  
Old 06-07-2016, 06:15 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,124
And who knows what's in them? Could be anything! Could be damning evidence of....something!
  #158  
Old 06-07-2016, 06:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Be charitable. It's all he's got.
  #159  
Old 06-07-2016, 06:29 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
And who knows what's in them? Could be anything! Could be damning evidence of....something!
Actually we do know because the IG found them. They were emails about her email system and her concerns for her privacy.

For something that was supposedly allowed, the people close to her sure wanted to make sure it was never a topic of discussion around the State Dept bureaucracy. Of course, it was not allowed. She lied. Lies also don't bother many Clinton supporters.
  #160  
Old 06-07-2016, 07:10 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,921
My biggest frustration with the whole "email scandal" is the apparent perception of people that Clinton only communicated via her Blackberry. This defies logic.

We know, from the OIG report, that the Secretaries of State who used emails were basically Colin Powell and Clinton (Albright never did; Rice and Kerry basically never did. Before Albright, email wasn't a thing). Are we to conclude that no other Secretary of State received confidential information? Of course not! That defies logic. Rather, they used other (secure) channels to receive and communicate top secret information.

So why should people assume that Clinton never received any of those secure, secret diplomatic cables? I'm not saying that she never dealt with confidential information in her emails, but I seriously doubt that she was getting her most sensitive information on her Blackberry.

So while the possibility exists that she had sensitive information on an unsecure server, that sounds like mere speculation unless and until this is shown to be true. Point being, the mere fact that she used a personal email server does not tend to elucidate her handling of sensitive information.
  #161  
Old 06-07-2016, 07:14 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Actually we do know because the IG found them. They were emails about her email system and her concerns for her privacy.
At least it wasn't government business. Way to move the goalposts.

Last edited by Fear Itself; 06-07-2016 at 07:15 PM.
  #162  
Old 06-07-2016, 07:37 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Those are government business because they dealt with an official issue: her need to get a State Dept email address.

But that brings up the other problem: she doesn't get to decide what's personal and what's government.
  #163  
Old 06-07-2016, 07:54 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 36,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Those are government business because they dealt with an official issue: her need to get a State Dept email address.

But that brings up the other problem: she doesn't get to decide what's personal and what's government.
But Republican Congressmen do? How do we know what they use their private email accounts for? Shouldn't we demand to see their email too, just in case?
  #164  
Old 06-07-2016, 07:55 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
The problem with our current partisan media environment is that Democrats don't bother to learn the details of democratic scandals and vice versa. Many of the Dem posters in this thread don't know the actual factual details of the email controversy. It reminds me about how Republicans didn't know what all the talk of yellow cake was about.
  #165  
Old 06-07-2016, 07:57 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
But Republican Congressmen do? How do we know what they use their private email accounts for? Shouldn't we demand to see their email too, just in case?
Does the Federal Records Act cover Congress?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Records_Act

From the wikipedia article, it seems to only apply to federal agencies, which would not include the President and VP, who I believe do have the right of executive privilege.
  #166  
Old 06-07-2016, 08:04 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
The problem with our current partisan media environment is that Democrats don't bother to learn the details of democratic scandals and vice versa. Many of the Dem posters in this thread don't know the actual factual details of the email controversy. It reminds me about how Republicans didn't know what all the talk of yellow cake was about.
Oh, we knew, we were just inclined to view the controversy giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. "Britain has learned" pretty much gave Bush total deniability if it was wrong, but that got blown out of the water by the Wilson/Plame issue, which simply could not be justified at all. But the thing is, when you support someone a lot, you'll latch onto anything you can and for a lot of us it was Joe Wilson, whose investigation basically consisted of asking around. It almost seemed like Plame had sent him there because the couple wanted a certain result. For a long time those of us who supported Bush thought that the State Dept and CIA bureaucracy were intentionally trying to kneecap the President.

But at some point the scandals just become too numerous and actions become too indefensible. The administration revealing the name of a covert agent in retaliation for Joe Wilson going to the media can't be excused under any conditions.

Clinton's sins are much smaller in scale, but still pretty inexcusable. It doesn't matter how much Republicans have been out to get her, her obsession with secrecy borders on criminal.
  #167  
Old 06-07-2016, 08:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Many of the Dem posters in this thread don't know the actual factual details of the email controversy.
What don't we know that matters?

And what do we know that you would prefer we didn't?
  #168  
Old 06-07-2016, 08:09 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Why don't you summarize what you know, and be honest, have you explored this controversy or just dismissed it, only absorbing the occasional headline?
  #169  
Old 06-07-2016, 08:18 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Or you could answer the question. If you could.
  #170  
Old 06-07-2016, 08:41 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
I've been. She set up the server to evade the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Federal Records Act by destroying work related emails, and she decided at her discretion what was work related and what wasn't, which you can be sure an underling wouldn't have gotten away with. Further, she lied pretty much every step of the way and then spun the rather damning IG report as an exoneration. Because she thinks you're stupid.
  #171  
Old 06-07-2016, 09:09 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Fact count in that post: Zero.

Amusing as usual, though.
  #172  
Old 06-07-2016, 09:14 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I've been. She set up the server to evade the Freedom of Information Act
Do we know this to be true? I've endeavored to be honest about her activities, but this sounds like speculation. Is there anything to show why she set up the server?

Quote:
she violated the Federal Records Act by destroying work related emails
Did she (I truly don't know)? From your own Wikipedia link about the act, it sounds like electronic records were added in 2014. She stopped being Secretary of State in 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In December 2014, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 was signed into law by President Barack Obama.[2][3] This bipartisan act, which followed the 2011 President's Memorandum on Managing Government Records, modernizes the Federal Records Act.[2][3] The act expressly expands the definition of federal records to include electronic records (the first change to the definition of "Federal record" since the enactment of the act in 1950).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaher
and she decided at her discretion what was work related and what wasn't, which you can be sure an underling wouldn't have gotten away with.
Can you show me where this is not allowed? As Secretary of State, I know that she has wide discretion on what classification to apply to information. But does she have discretion to delete personal emails (i.e. if she emailed her daughter about her grandchild's birthday, is she able to delete it, or does that email need to go through some sort of review process before it is deemed not work-related?)

Quote:
Further, she lied pretty much every step of the way and then spun the rather damning IG report as an exoneration.
I do agree that she has been cagey. However, I sympathize with her frustration, given that her predecessor was the first Secretary of State to request an internet connection in his office once he realized that he could not email people outside of the department on the government intra-net. She didn't initiate the private email use (nor is it necessarily unprecedented to have a private server; Jeb Bush used one while Governor of Florida).

And given that it recently came out that the government was still using old style floppy disks for nuclear weapons, I do honestly wonder how modern and sophisticated the government's own system was.

Quote:
Because she thinks you're stupid.
I know that you are editorializing, but I don't see why this is the only explanation.
  #173  
Old 06-07-2016, 09:19 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Because there is no way one can read any media summary of the IG report and conclude that the most important point is that what she did was just like what everyone else did.
  #174  
Old 06-07-2016, 10:07 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Because there is no way one can read any media summary of the IG report and conclude that the most important point is that what she did was just like what everyone else did.
Why just read media summaries? The report is online.

Skimming it again, I do note that it does answer some questions. For one, the server had existed from her time in the Senate.

Quote:
Secretary Clinton employed a personal email system to conduct business during her tenure in the United States Senate and her 2008 Presidential campaign. She continued to use personal email throughout her term as Secretary, relying on an account maintained on a private server, predominantly through mobile devices. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the server was located in her New York residence.
And while President Obama did sign a law in 2014 expressly clarifying that email records are included, they were reasonably included previously. So I was wrong on that point (see Dopers? You can say you were wrong and your posting privileges won't be revoked or anything!)
Quote:
NARA promulgates regulations providing guidance to agencies on implementation of the Federal Records Act and recordkeeping obligations more generally. Since 1990, the regulations issued by NARA have explained that the medium of the record may be “paper, film, disk, or other physical type or form” and that the method of recording may be “manual, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or any other combination of these or other technologies.”...In 1995, NARA amended the Code of Federal Regulations to confirm that “messages created or received on electronic mail systems may meet the definition of record.”
But those same regulations seem to acknowledge that private email use is allowed (as long as the records are preserved)

Quote:
The regulations also referenced the use of electronic communications systems external to the Government, indicating that “agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that Federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate recordkeeping system.”
Further, the report notes that in 2009, the Code of Federal Regulations was changed to say that "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record system."

And the report later confirms that the use of private email was permissible.

Quote:
As discussed earlier in this report, laws and regulations did not prohibit employees from using their personal email accounts for the conduct of official Department business.
So is the scandal that she used private email, or is the scandal that she didn't initially print and catalogue the private emails with the government?

If the scandal is the failure to print and file the records with the government, then we should certainly throw the book at her. What sort of punishment is she facing?

Quote:
...S/ES staff told OIG that employees in the Office of the Secretary have printed and filed such emails only sporadically. In its discussions with OIG, NARA stated that this lack of compliance exists across the government. Although the Department is aware of the failure to print and file, the FAM contains no explicit penalties for lack of compliance, and the Department has never proposed discipline against an employee for failure to comply.
I'm guessing that an indictment is not forthcoming, especially since this is endemic across government.

Quote:
According to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, most agencies do not prioritize records management, as evidenced by lack of staff and budget resources, absence of up-to-date policies and procedures, lack of training, and lack of accountability. In its most recent annual assessment of records management, NARA identified similar weaknesses across the Federal Government with regard to electronic records in particular. NARA reported that 80 percent of agencies had an elevated risk for the improper management of electronic records, reflecting serious challenges handling vast amounts of email, integrating records management functionality into electronic systems, and adapting to the changing technological and regulatory environments.
But, it's Hillary. Just because other people do it, too, doesn't make it right! She didn't properly print and catalogue her emails, and that is scandalous! The report says so!

Quote:
Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.
As for the actual conclusion of the report

Quote:
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership.
Now, it should be noted that Clinton is criticized for not having her private email system "vetted" by the government. But I'll let somebody else take a stab at quoting those critiques. From where I sit, this is not such a severe breach of protocol that it warrants disqualification to be President.
  #175  
Old 06-07-2016, 10:34 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
As seen, I still expect that while a lot of Republicans will still swallow the idea from congress Republicans that Hillary will be indicted or arrested when the most likely outcome comes, that there will not be any serious charges, I do think that there will a good number of Republicans that will once again realize that they were duped by the Republican "leadership".

What about the Libertarians?

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/li...ws-republicans
Quote:
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld joined Chuck Todd for an exclusive interview to launch their quixotic campaign to woo the Republican Party into Libertarian ranks.

...

But then there was a moment where former Governor Weld shattered Republican dreams and Donald Trump's talking points about Hillary Clinton's email.

Weld changed the topic they were discussing and brought up the whole Hillary email hoo-ha, telling Chuck Todd it is going nowhere. When pressed by Todd on why he thought so, Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."
Well, at least they are getting one thing right!

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-07-2016 at 10:35 PM.
  #176  
Old 06-07-2016, 11:34 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,295
There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed.
  #177  
Old 06-07-2016, 11:56 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Moriarty, taking a step back from going after Clinton, she's had two main defenses which are perfectly valid, IF she does something about those two problems as President:

1) Everyone does it. That has to stop. Government transparency demands records be retained, plus it's just sensible even if the public doesn't get to see it.

2) Overclassification. Nothing chaps my ass more than hearing Presidents complain about things they have the power to change. If State overclassifies things, issue new guidelines! You can do that, you're the President! Another example is when the President said in his SOTU that the government had all kinds of contradictory and duplicative rules for tangerines or some such. Wow, if only there was someone in charge of the executive branch who could put a stop to duplicative or contradictory rulemaking. Fix this shit! This is why few respect government's competence.
  #178  
Old 06-08-2016, 12:53 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed.
As even the FBI told us that Hillary Clinton is not the target of the security review, I have to agree with Weld.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/
  #179  
Old 06-08-2016, 12:56 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As seen, I still expect that while a lot of Republicans will still swallow the idea from congress Republicans that Hillary will be indicted or arrested when the most likely outcome comes, that there will not be any serious charges, I do think that there will a good number of Republicans that will once again realize that they were duped by the Republican "leadership".

What about the Libertarians?

Quote:
Weld replied, "I'm speaking as a former director of the criminal division of the Justice Department. There's no criminal intent, and with no criminal intent there's no indictment."
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/li...ws-republicans


Well, at least they are getting one thing right!
You can bet that line is already cued up in the Clinton's team response to Trump's "major" speech next week about Bill and Hillary.

Last edited by JohnT; 06-08-2016 at 12:57 AM.
  #180  
Old 06-08-2016, 07:43 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Unless you're a ham sandwich. There can certainly be charges and indictments that can't hold up under the law, if the prosecutor is on a political vendetta.

But that isn't the case here either.
  #181  
Old 06-08-2016, 09:51 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
There have been plenty of convictions for violations of secrecy laws where no criminal intent existed.
I think you must be using some colloquial definition of "criminal intent" here--i.e., that people have been convicted for knowingly disclosing or mishandling classified information for non-criminal purposes. If so, I'm sure that's true. But if you're using the actual definition of "criminal intent"--i.e., relevant knowledge (or recklessness) that the information was classified--then I think your claim is probably false depending on what you mean by "plenty." Notwithstanding loose talk about strict liability by some ill-informed bloggers, I don't think any of the relevant laws actually lack criminal intent requirements.
  #182  
Old 06-08-2016, 02:18 PM
LonghornDave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
As even the FBI told us that Hillary Clinton is not the target of the security review, I have to agree with Weld.
Where in your link did the FBI tell us that? I've seen reports from unnamed FBI sources leaked to media members that go both directions. Here the only FBI comment I saw in your link.

Quote:
Describing the inquiry, FBI Director James Comey told Congress in October 2015, "The FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Sec. Clinton’s use of a private email server."

He declined to give any more specifics.
Having said that, your link is from January. Here's from the same source in May.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-emails-recap/

Quote:
Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown.
  #183  
Old 06-08-2016, 02:23 PM
LonghornDave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,816
It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn't told us yet.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

Quote:
In a separate filing Monday, the Justice Department refused to detail the nature of the FBI probe connected to Clinton’s machine, except that it was based on a “security referral” from inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence agencies.

“[T]he FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation,” in order to keep the information secret, it asserted.
  #184  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:11 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
It's all technical. It's a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone's getting indicted.
  #185  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:13 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornDave View Post
It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn't told us yet.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case
I got the information from here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15...ment.html?_r=0
Quote:
The F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.

Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.
Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be less likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-08-2016 at 04:14 PM.
  #186  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:21 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It's all technical. It's a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone's getting indicted.
And the full weight of your expertise and authority is behind that?
  #187  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:33 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account.
  #188  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:45 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account.
And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past "scandals" the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison.

Unhinged yes, but many will still go back for other bullshit. But, what I also expect is to see more than a few Republicans that will, in combination of seeing Trump become the nominee and realizing that they were had once again by the Republican party regarding the Clintons, vote for Hillary in disgust for all the bullshit that was tossed at them.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-08-2016 at 04:46 PM.
  #189  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:47 PM
LonghornDave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It's all technical. It's a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone's getting indicted.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-d...ry?id=39048269

Quote:
Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."

One reporter noted that former Secretary of State Clinton often refers to it as a "security inquiry."

The word "investigation" -- "it’s in our name,” Comey responded. “And I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’”
  #190  
Old 06-08-2016, 04:59 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past "scandals" the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison.
If the FBI recommends indictment, it's game over, regardless of what Loretta Lynch does.
  #191  
Old 06-08-2016, 05:03 PM
LonghornDave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I got the information from here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15...ment.html?_r=0


Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be less likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed.
Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16).

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12

Directly from the motion from the Justice Department.

Quote:
Because the FBI’s principal function is law enforcement, the FBI’s claimed purpose for the withheld records is entitled to deference here.

...

Therefore, the FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation

...

The FBI met both parts of the deferential standard here. The FBI has publicly stated that it is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server.

...

Thus, the FBI identified a particular incident in connection with the investigation, not merely “a general monitoring of private individuals’ activities.”
Pratt
, 673 F.2d at 420. And the referral from the Inspectors General to the FBI provided a rational nexus between the pending investigation and the FBI’s law enforcement duties.
  #192  
Old 06-08-2016, 05:05 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Oh, it's definitely an investigation of Clinton, she's just not a "target", which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she'd be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they'll get you for something.
  #193  
Old 06-08-2016, 05:25 PM
LonghornDave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Oh, it's definitely an investigation of Clinton, she's just not a "target", which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she'd be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they'll get you for something.
Even that doesn't seem right. How do we know she's not a target? They're coming out and directly saying they aren't naming their targets.

She's trying to characterize this as a general review of policies of the past several secretaries of state. It's not an investigation, it's an inquiry. She's not a target. She followed all the rules and did the same thing as Powell and Rice. Rules have since been clarified. At the same time the Justice Department is filing motions saying it is an investigation related specifically to the FBI's principal role of law enforcement and relates directly to "Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server".

I'm not saying I think she's going to jail, but I think these blanket assertions that she's not a target of any investigation and has not broken any laws are just wishful thinking. That might be true, but we don't know it because the FBI hasn't told us anything yet. It simply can't be proven either way. Common sense tells me, though no doubt most of this board would disagree, that the FBI thinks there is at least something there worth investigating. I think they would have dropped it long before now if it was as simple as she's doing the same thing as Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice.

It further seems to me that there is a greater than zero chance that the clear Presidential front runner and only remaining viable candidate running may face a criminal indictment a few short months before the election date. The prospect of that terrifies me. Not sure what percentage chance I put on it happening; it's certainly less than 50% but probably greater than 10%. I hope the Democrats have a good fall-back plan.
  #194  
Old 06-08-2016, 06:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornDave View Post
Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16).

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...ton-email-case

https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12

Directly from the motion from the Justice Department.
And nowhere there contradicts what I said, even if old. The point stands as you also helped establish it, most of what the right wing has going on has been bullshit. And the ones that could be targets can demand the FBI to confirm if that is the case, one can dismiss what Hillary has said but it is less likely IMHO that she did not ask, and her behavior afterwards points to what she reported about what the FBI told her that she is not the target; so far, but that is what it should be reported, not the certifiable bullshit that we have seen coming from the right. Some of what they say about Clinton is accurate, but this only underlines what I think is going to happen.

The results are likely to be embarrassing to Clinton, but it is more likely that there will not be a recommendation to an indictment and even going farther a less likely conviction; it will underline how bad the right has been when giving information to their readers and viewers.
  #195  
Old 06-08-2016, 06:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornDave View Post
Even that doesn't seem right. How do we know she's not a target? They're coming out and directly saying they aren't naming their targets.
That is right, because it is not the beeswax business of people that are not involved. However, this has been known for ages:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-emails-recap/
Quote:
If people ask about their status in an investigation, it’s common practice for the Justice Department to tell them whether they’re targets or not, said Lauren Ouziel, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law.

"If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate,"
  #196  
Old 06-08-2016, 07:05 PM
Trinopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,861
This isn't quite a "they did it too" argument, but, rather, "a much worse offense was never indicted," and that's Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.)

If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could.
  #197  
Old 06-08-2016, 07:53 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
This isn't quite a "they did it too" argument, but, rather, "a much worse offense was never indicted," and that's Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.)

If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could.
That's not how the law works though. It's about what you can prove. The whole investigation was looking in the wrong place. Richard Armitage was the source of the leak. There's a lot less ambiguity in legal terms around Clinton's email server. We don't know for sure what exactly they are looking into, but assuming it's about security, "Secure vs. not secure" isn't really difficult to determine and prosecute.
  #198  
Old 06-08-2016, 07:59 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Now on the poitics of it you are right, but in political terms Clinton vs. Bush isn't the race, it's Clinton vs. Trump, so it's actually Clinton's lack of transparency vs. Trump basically being a fraud in general. Clinton probably wins there too. Although politically, scandal as a member of the government might be frowned upon more than private sector scandal. And as with any scandal, it depends on how it's handled as much as the merits of the scandal itself.

Last edited by adaher; 06-08-2016 at 07:59 PM.
  #199  
Old 06-09-2016, 10:42 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,237
'Nuff said.
  #200  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:54 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,823
Meh.

Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She claimed that she didn't delete anything very important. The FBI has since recovered most of the emails she deleted.

She knows they are investigating and have all of the evidence. She knows that if she was a liar comma it would be exposed for all to see.

Hillary Clinton has not blinked since the FBI said they recovered all of those emails. This is why, along with the long history of scandals that went up in smoke, I don't think anything will come of this.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.

 
Copyright © 2017