Why are you assuming people are pretending if they think this will be widely regarded as old news?
Well, fewer when he holds it in the morning on a work day. Then you get home, turn on the news and see “Careless but no indictment or charges” which pretty much lets it play out in your mind however you were predisposed in the first place.
I disagree, but that is a non-sequitur anyway. Whether it’s a scandal or not, those “details” are what have caused some critics to believe this was something worse than occurred under previous Secretaries. So it isn’t much of an argument to say that it is the same as before so long as you ignore the details.
Why do you think I’m pretending? If Hillary were a brand new candidate, then it would be a big deal. But I think people’s minds are mostly made up about her, and without an indictment, this doesn’t have much of an effect. Most of her supporters recognize that she’s flawed but believe she’s far superior to her opponent, and most of her opponent’s supporters already hate her. I don’t think there are many in the middle – most who say they’re undecided probably will vote 3rd party or won’t vote at all.
I’m pretty close to Nate Silver’s view in his latest politics chat: “It would be bad for Clinton if it came out of the blue. It didn’t, though. A lot of this is priced in, and we can argue whether today was slightly negative (my view) or slightly positive (betting markets’ view) for Clinton relative to expectations.” He thinks it’s a slight negative, and I think it’s neutral – avoiding an indictment was a big positive, but getting criticized by Comey was a negative. I think in the long run it will be a wash compared to how the issue was affecting her last week.
Again, can you find one example of someone being charged for a crime with the same evidence as the FBI found in this investigation? Remember that Comey explicitly stated that they found no evidence of an attempt to obstruct justice or hide evidence of the improper handling of classified information.
It was stupid, negligent, and embarrassing. The whole setup obviously should never have been allowed. Hillary is a seriously flawed candidate and in a sane world the Democrats would have nominated a better one (and no, I don’t mean Bernie Sanders). That said, there really is no rational argument that Donald Trump is a more reasonable choice to lead the nation.
I realize you’re basically talking about how this affects the presidential election, but
it is worth noting that–even if restrict ourselves to the world of elections and not all of the other ramifications of this–this can affect Hillary in significant ways without changing her standing vis-a-vis Trump. For one, she is the standard-bearer for a party trying to elect a bunch of down-ballot people. If you damage the trustworthiness of that person, it may well trim the length of her coattails.
Possibly, but I don’t think it will have that great of an effect. All that’s left would be kitchen-sink attacks from the right, and they’ve been doing that all along. As long as this election is about Trump, which both sides seem determined to make it, I don’t think this issue affects turnout.
Hell, now Congress is asking Comey to come answer questions. Having him defend Clinton (by stating that there was no evidence she had any malicious intent) could actually help her a bit.
I’m less sanguine. My experience on this board teaches me that a huge number of voters still don’t know the basic details of what happened. More prominent coverage is bad for Clinton.
She can afford to take a further hit to the public’s assessment of her and still win the Presidency easily. But taking the Senate (or even the House!) might come down to a small number of votes in a few quirky places, and I think “Elect me so I can be a check on Hillary” will be an increasingly viable approach–especially if she continues to gain on Trump.
Disgusting IMO. It always amazes me how immune to prosecution top leaders have become, especially the Clintons. And Obama let his Secretary of State run a private unsecure email server, I’d like to see some admission of guilt there too.
Mainly because it’s so obviously not old news. I am not saying people are lying, more deluding themselves. This is the latest landmark of an ongoing saga. And this “it just confirms what everyone thought anyways” others here are saying is also BS. I have read just yesterday people saying “nothing was classified when she sent/recieved the emails”. The report explicitly refutes that.
We need to ask ourselves what she will do in the White House. The way that she flaunts the rules. Her obsession with secrecy lead to her email server. It came out in hearings that her biggest concern was her private emails being secure. Apparently that was more important than National security.
She threw her daily schedules in the burn bag.
I can only think of one other President this narcissistic. Richard Nixon. We all know about his abuses of power.
This country is in such serious trouble. Our two choices in this election are just horrible.
Those are little details, though – the larger point, that Hillary was not entirely honest, and that she and her team screwed up, is old news.
I’ve thrown daily schedules in burn bags. Probably everyone I know in over a decade of military active duty and military civilian service, dealing with classified info every day, has thrown daily schedules (and other paperwork) in burn bags dozens or hundreds of times. If this violates rules or the law, then it’s a violation that occurs thousands of times per day, and probably the vast majority of classified workers are guilty of it.
As I said in the post you quoted, there are supporters as recent as yesterday who thought she was honest when she said nothing was confidential when she emailed it.
If someone doesn’t believe people will pore over the report, it’s not bs to say that it will just confirm what people thought. I think it will just confirm what people thought, even if what they thought was factually incorrect.
You don’t have to pore over the report. The highlights of the press conference speech reported on the front page of every newspaper does the job.
Generally speaking, the way to understand someone’s point is to keep reading to the end of the sentence.
If any of those supporters indicate they’re less likely to vote for Clinton, or even say that their opinion of her has substantially changed, then I will consider changing my view.
You were not expressing a view on how people would vote. You expressed the view that this report will just confirm what everyone knew already.
Thanks for taking the trouble.
OK, so there is indeed at least one case which is not entirely different from Clinton’s situation. I was struck by this, however:
[Quote=Politico]
Pitcher acknowledges that his friend violated Navy rules if he took the photos as prosecutors allege, but he says such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn’t face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said.
[/quote]
So yeah, this guy was charged with a felony, but it appears that the far more typical outcome is considerably less severe. And the less severe outcome seems the more reasonable, to be honest.
Still not seeing a real justification for prosecuting Clinton, sorry. Does this whole affair affect my perception of her suitability for the office of President? Yep, but when the alternative is named Trump (or, frankly, most of the other mooks that he beat in the primaries), it’s not enough to change my vote.