Clinton campaign raises $143 million in August.
$81 million sent to fund Democratic down-ballot races
$62 million went to the HRC campaign
HRC still has $68 million cash on hand
John McCain’s newest general election ad assumes Hillary will be President.
(About 2:30 into the video)
Kinda. He said “if” Clinotn wins. This is part of a general Republican strategy guide to hold the Senate so as to act as a check on a possible Clinton presidency.
Blunt: GOP Senate Could Be a Check on Trump or Clinton
Ticket Splitting May Be the GOP’s Best Hope
From the last:
But you just don’t do that. As a candidate for senate you talk about how you and your party’s presidential nominee are going to be a great team for the people of your state. At least, that’s what you do in any normal campaign.
An excellent example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome exposed. Trying to help staff get passports for a humanitarian mission to bring back prisoners from North Korea is not, in any way whatsoever, a scandal.
Today the FBI released some documents from their investigation of HRC’s mis-handling of classified information in emails. Here is a link to the documents.
Yup, they released copies of the same emails they exonerated in July. Film at 11!
Anyway, in news of the future, another 6 or more influential Republicans joined Republicans For Clinton today, including Jeb Bush’s director of coalitions Charles Badger.
The full list can be seen here: http://www.r4c16.org/endorsements/
It wasn’t copies of emails. It was notes from the FBI interview with Clinton and her staff. If you don’t think this is noteworthy, it’s probably due to partisan blinders. I just checked and it’s on the front page of:
CNN
NBC News
CBS News
ABC News
FOX News
etc.
Maybe the release is noteworthy, but what about the content? So far, I’ve seen no significant revelations.
I’m just curious… not trying to be snarky:
Are the majority of people here on Straight Dope rolling their eyes at this, saying it doesn’t matter?
I just got home from work, is it true she lost a phone with sensitive information on it?
It’s the notes about how the FBI decided not to pursue a case against.
Look - no matter how much it bugs conservatives, the truth is that “we don’t have a case here” just is never going to have the same impact as, “we have a real case here” .
There’s no case here. Let it go.
Some guy on the internet offered an interesting theory: that the main reason that Hillary didn’t worry about her e-mail security is that she didn’t trust any really secret stuff to e-mail. Fits in with talk about her being so secretive. Which is to say, she expects her incoming e-mails to kind of bland and uninteresting in terms of really hot secrets, she expected to get those by way of secure communication. She may only have glanced over the e-mails, like skimming a dull book, expecting only to be advised of the mundane details of diplomacy.
Hence, she might not have even noticed the “©” marker. She wasn’t expecting to be reading anything to worry about.
The fact we didn’t find anything proves that she’s sneakier than most!
I’m not looking for reasons to hate or even dislike Hillary. I just want to know if the notes indicate whether or not people here might shrug them off, or be slightly annoyed, or totally think it’s a non issue.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
The notes explain nothing that we didn’t know before. If Comey’s statement wasn’t enough to sway one way or another, the notes aren’t going to change one’s mind.
Ok
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
But she said she did notice it - she wasn’t sure what it meant, and “speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”
Which is perfectly understandable - you surely wouldn’t expect someone who served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 5 years and signed a formal document acknowledging having received indoctrination in security procedures to know basic stuff about classified information.
Generally, that’s not how someone operating on a secured computer system would communicate that the email or any of its attachments are classified. Typically, an email would be sent using the same non-abbreviated classification that any document inside would be marked with.
For instance, if an attached memo was at a Secret level classification, the subject line in the email would read SECRET (and any further restrictions, such as NOFORN for information restricted to authorized U.S. personnel only, or FVEY, for information restricted to authorized U.S., U.K., Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand personnel). (c) is not a classification abbreviation and the word “classified” itself is not a classification level, it is just saying that something has some kind of classification level. There are separate government networks that handle unclassified, SECRET, and TOP SECRET information and materials. There is no “classified” network, since that could cover two separate and differing levels of classification.
The C stands for CONFIDENTIAL, which is indeed a classification level.
Once you’ve got the time, why don’t you actually read those notes. Let us know any scandalous details you uncover.
Thanks!