Goalpost 1: “They’ve personally enriched themselves more than any other politicians in U.S. history.”
Goalpost 2: “I’m saying that they have enriched themselves through their political positions more than anyone else.”
Just so we’re clear here.
Math question: If you and your spouse are being paid an average of $150k to give a speech, how many speeches would you have to give in a 16 year period in order to have $100 million in speech earnings?
Or 41 per year. Or 3.5 a month. Or 1.75 speeches per month, per spouse.
Again, I don’t see the impossibility here or the smell of corruption. You think it’s “unsavory” that the most personable President in our lifetimes commands $200k+ a speech? I think it’s odd that Donald Trump was paid $1.5 million for a speech a few years ago, but I don’t call it unsavory. I don’t consider it unsavory that W has made over $15 million since 2008 in speeches. It’s just a stream of revenue.
LBJ? Your cognomen suggests some familiarity with Texas. The insinuation that Texas politics was “corrupt” is on a par with suggesting that a two-dollar Shanghai waterfront hooker is “unchaste”.
I’m not saying anything about the article. It was just the first link I pulled up that had a more recent date.
Clinton sent at least 104 classified emails herself, compared to 0 for Rice, 0 for Powell, 0 for Albright, 0 for Kerry.
Probably all were retroactively classified. That doesn’t mean that the content wasn’t always classified though. It means they weren’t attached documents that were marked classified. If they typed in an email that included classified information in the content, by definition it would have to have been retroactively classified. Further, it doesn’t matter. She clearly signed an agreement to not disclosed classified information whether “marked or unmarked”.
I can grant some wiggle room here. I think there is certainly argument that may be made that things might get overly classified or they err too conservatively on classifying. I can get behind that. What clearly matters most is whether the content was known to be classified information at the time it was sent. When you have thousands of cases and the inspector general of the state department, numerous individuals with classified access, and probably soon to be the FBI all come down on you then I think it’s pretty clear you weren’t fulfilling your duties on safeguarding information.
Possible, but I disagree. I don’t think that was what she meant. If all she wanted was her personal email address to not be accessible, then it seems massively easier to not use your personal email address for work related items. Do what everyone else does and have a separate email address for personal and for work.
Except their thing they were being told to drop was exactly the thing that she even she now admits was a mistake and something she has just been slapped down for by the inspector general. Also, the inspector general thinks it is worthwhile enough to put it in the report.
Raising money for charity is obviously fine. Raising money from people that you are then also doing business with crosses an ethical line. It raises a clear conflict of interest. Say for example, raising money from a foreign country and then turning around and making a favorable reward to that foreign country. Further, when you are also personally benefiting from that charity to the tune of millions of dollars per year, then it moves it even further into the negative territory.
No, there’s no change and my implication was obvious. You may have misinterpreted it, but that’s your problem.
It toes the line into bribery. You are personally making money off someone that you can then enrich through public funds. It’s a horrible practice. They pay expecting influence. You think people are paying Chelsea Clinton $100,000+ to make speeches because she’s just an entertaining speaker? It’s far worse than any type of normal lobbying effort that you same people rail against.
But Hillary Clinton wasn’t involved in the work of the foundation while she was SoS. Also, who was personally getting millions of dollars per year from the foundation and in what years. This is an honest question. I have not heard this.
Are you really comparing the same thing. You are referring to retroactive classification of emails to “literally thousands of emails that were sent or received by Clinton and her staff” without telling us how many of those were retroactively classified.
And how significant is this revelation of “retroactive classification” anyway?
So retroactive classification of emails is a touchy subject. Still, do we have anything telling us whether Clinton’s were classified at the time they were sent and received or whether they were retroactive?
I quoted you directly. Are you claiming that I modified your quote?
Look, as I mentioned, you obviously have it in for HRC. And I’m not really interested in seeing you torture the definition of “unsavory” and “bribery” into a shape that somehow includes actions performed by HRC but is exclusive of those same actions performed by every other President and current nominee.
So your evidence is two Sanders supporters and a website that touts itself as, and I quote, “Conservative news, politics, opinion, breaking news analysis, political cartoons and commentary.” No, no possible bias there. Again, give me break.
I don’t see that this has been addressed. It is my understanding (and I am open to contrary opinion) that the FBI investigation is to determine whether classified information was leaked to somebody not supposed to receive it. That will lead to whatever response is deemed necessary, but it is not the role of the FBI to bring criminal charges. That would come from the Justice Department.
I don’t see how any of this could lead to criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. The arbiter of what is a classified State Department communication is the Secretary of State (Here’s the applicable Executive Order). So if Clinton said it wasn’t a classified email, then it wasn’t a classified email.
And as Politifact explained in the link I provided upthread, there can be information that is “classified” one way, or in one department, and not classified in another.
So, if it was a criminal investigation, what law would be broken if an email, which wasn’t classified at the time it was sent, was retroactively classified, or deemed classified by a different department or agency?
…
LonghornDave has evidence than “more than 2,000” classified emails were sent or received by Hillary. Where does that come from? Let’s see…
Ahh…so of the 2,000, many were ‘retroactively classified’. But there were dozens that were secret or above. So, are we really comparing Hillary’s dozens to the indeterminate number from Powell and Rice?
Indeterminate? Oh, yeah, I remember…
[QUOTE=CNN cite, above]
“Based on the department’s responses and findings to date, additional potential classified material and/or highly sensitive information not intended for distribution may reside in the Department’s unclassified paper and electronic archives associated with Secretaries Powell and Rice and their respective staff,” a memo about the report said.
[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, LonghornDave’s article has hyper-links! So we can get an idea where the phrase “dozens of emails” comes from.
So, dozens means 23. None of those were marked as classified during her tenure (duh! She’s the decision maker on what is classified during her tenure). Oh, but note the nuance…intelligence officials say that some of it was clearly classified at the time.
Hmm…intelligence versus state. Where have I heard about that conflict before?
[QUOTE=Earlier Politifcact article]
Ultimately, both Blanton and Aftergood said the memos tell us much more about the turf war between State and the intelligence community than they do about how Clinton handled her emails.
“What leaps out at me is how dysfunctional our classification system has become, where you have different agencies and different offices arguing over the mere existence of classified information,” Aftergood said. “What does it say about Secretary Clinton? It doesn’t say anything about deliberate or negligent mishandling of classified information.”
Blanton said, “The intelligence community is trying to override State Department determination. … It doesn’t say anything about Mrs. Clinton’s own activities.”
[/QUOTE]
(My emphasis)
…
[QUOTE=Me, when it was late, and I was stoned tired]
Sorry, but I don’t think we aren’t at scandal level just yet…
[/QUOTE]
Double negative! I meant “are”, not "aren’t! :smack:
**Moriarity **, my good chap, it is a shame you spend yourself with that all-consuming feud with that Holmes fellow, you would be a worthy asset to the Clinton campaign.
