So apparently that previous cite was not very good. Here is one from Time that says essentially the same thing: Hillary Clinton Has a Lot to Say About Her Emails. Much of It Isn’t True:
Seriously? That’s the worst you’ve got? Wow.
Maybe you could nail her for jaywalking, too. This could be just the break the Trump campaign is looking for!
Pretty much. The key is whether she is going to be too arrogant, like LBJ, or too vindictive, like Nixon. If she’s humble and fair, she could do good things.
So a major department head deciding to do something because it is convenient while not bothering to check to see if it is a) smart b) allowed and c) secure doesn’t bother you at all? And it doesn’t bother you that after getting caught doing something that was stupid as fuck, not allowed and insecure, she lied about every single fact regarding the situation?
I probably could have hacked Clintons server. I certainly know some folks who could have*. I am damned sure that any foreign country that she accessed that server from sure as hell did. Since she was using a cell phone it is trivial to capture the data sent if you control the towers. And once you capture the traffic, you know the destination. And once you know the destination, you attack it. Especially Clintons insecure server which had vnc running on a public address.
The lack of good judgement is stunning.
Slee
- I have worked with some awesome security folks. I only do firewalls, not pen testing.
Its a sure bet Reagan kept his e-mails secure!
You know, despite her reputation among my fellow righties, I’ve seen no evidence of real vindictiveness in her. The Clintons have always been willing to talk to those who were going after them. Newt Gingrich would do everything in his power to get Clinton thrown out of office, then go up to the White House and have very friendly conversations about policy.
Arrogance I think is a bigger problem because she truly does seem to believe that the rules don’t matter because of who she is. The fact that she thinks this even before she becomes President makes me wonder just how much she’ll care about legal niceties once she actually is President.
Except for the whole awkward fact that polls seem to pretty clearly show Sanders vs Trump has a much more comfortable margin than Clinton Vs Trump. Clinton would have been a good candidate against Cruz or Jeb or Kasich. She’s a terrible candidate against Trump where he can constantly use his outsider status to attack her as a tool of the establishment.
And her scandals are only going to continue to chip away at her lead over Trump.
Except that Clinton clearly has at least some shred of character, and she clearly will go the way that she believes her voters want her to go in. She represented the state of New York as Senator, not a borough of New York City, not the state of Vermont. Big difference. Bernie can get back to us all and let us know how successful a politician he has been and how successful he has been at pushing progressive ideals across a broader spectrum of voters. To date, he hasn’t really done that as effectively as Clinton has. He can complain that the system is rigged, but in reality, his activism, while it has drawn lots of attention to his ideals, hasn’t succeeded in bringing them into effect. And he’s older than Hillary and been involved in politics for a long time.
The real problem with Hillary is in how she’s chosen to handle the email issue. I won’t call it a scandal because it’s only a scandal in the minds of conspiracy theorists and media sensationalists. However, her evasiveness is going to continue to give ordinary people reason to find fault with her, and whether she likes it or not, many ordinary and otherwise uninformed voters look to find fault and will make voting decisions on that basis alone. Trump, for all of his faults, is not transparent about a lot of things, but he’s transparent about the fact that he has faults. He doesn’t hide that. This is going to continue to be a problem for Hillary.
I suspect that as the race continues, the media, the DNC, and a few other wildcards will do Hillary’s heavy lifting for her. Trump’s flaws as a candidate and potential president will be magnified in ways that haven’t been to date. Hillary, while not the ideal candidate, will ultimately be preferable (significantly so) to a president who obviously would have no clue how to handle a magnitude of crucial situations. I have lost a lot of faith in the American voter, but I have just enough faith left to hope that we wouldn’t be so foolish as to elect this buffoon.
coremelt wants the Democratic Party to nominate Bernie. Thanks!
That “awkward fact” is pretty much meaningless at this point – not only is it so early that such polls tell us almost nothing, but Hillary is more than on track to win regardless. I’m talking facts – barring disaster (e.g. a criminal indictment), Hillary will win the nomination. Even if she loses every single remaining state. She’s won way more voters, and way more pledged delegates.
The Democratic electorate has spoken, and their choice, by a significant majority of voters and delegates, is Hillary Clinton. Democrats actually like her, and that’s why Bernie didn’t have much of a chance; it’s hard to beat someone that the party actually likes.
It’s not meaningless. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Sanders is more electable than Clinton at this point. Just as I have no doubt that Kasich was more electable than any Republican. The polls aren’t PREDICTIVE at this point, but that doesn’t mean they are meaningless either. Sanders has had a clear lead over Clinton in electability for too long and his margin over here is only getting larger. There’s just no way that’s statistical noise.
It’s meaningless in the sense of affecting this primary, which is over barring disaster.
It’s also meaningless because general election polls during primaries are always meaningless. Nate Silver shows us this with numbers – there’s pretty much zero correlation between those polls and the final results. The front-runner is always attacked much, much more than those running behind, and therefore they’re always going to suffer more hits in these kinds of polls. If Bernie was the front-runner the whole time, then the polling would probably be reversed. It’s not statistical noise (rather, it reflects primary dynamics between the one ahead and the one behind) – but it’s still meaningless.
It tells us nothing about anything. And Hillary’s going to be the nominee barring a criminal indictment.
Given the IG report, Hillary’s the nominee even if there’s a criminal indictment. It’s not a like a criminal indictment would tell us anything new about the issue.
Yes it would – it would tell us that she’s under criminal indictment. That’s very, very different from being criticized in the manner of the recent report.
In other words, her political viability goes into the toilet. Nothing changes about the morality of what she did. Which is why if an indictment came after the convention it would not be sufficient cause to remove her from the ballot.
Why do you say something only to immediately have to take it back? What’s the point? I’m sure you recognized as you were typing it that a criminal indictment really is vastly different than documented formal criticism.
No, it’s the possible legal consequence of the criticism. What she did doesn’t change because she got indicted. If you think what she did wasn’t wrong, then it doesn’t become wrong just because the FBI says so. Either her private email account was ethically wrong, or it wasn’t. If you don’t believe it was wrong, then all an indictment is is a technical interpretation of the rules in an adverse way. Stand by your candidate.
Are we a fair weather supporter?
What are you talking about? I think she’s made plenty of mistakes and poor decisions. I still think she’d be better (far, far better) than Trump. If she’s indicted, I’ll be much, much less likely to believe that she’ll be able to beat Trump, as will many more supporters, and we’ll probably decide Bernie is the best option (he’d also be far, far better than Trump).
The way you frame this stuff is ludicrous. It’s almost never black and white.
That’s what I was looking for from you: an admission that it’s not about right or wrong, but about whether she can beat Trump.
However, you already know now whether or not what she did rises to the level of criminality. There are no excuses if things go tits up after the convention.