I have changed my mind about the Clinton email scandal (and so should you)

[Sage_Rat]

@Richard_Parker

But the only people capable of intelligently evaluating the magnitude of the security risk posed by her IT practices had told her it was a big deal. She did not have the technological knowledge to evaluate that risk for herself.

You don’t have to be technologically knowledgeable to get the idea, “China is reading all (100%) of your e-mails.”

[Richard_Parker]

@LonghornDave

This seems incredibly strange to me. What would inconvenience you more, if your work email address changed or if they swapped out servers and your email address stayed the same? I am guessing 99.9% of people would be far more inconvenienced by having to change their email address than any change to the server.

That’s irrelevant to what it means to use the “same setup” in the context of this thread.

@LonghornDave

She could have still used a Blackberry to access her email even if she was using a government address. She wasn’t supposed to use a smart phone of any type in certain secure locations. Further, she wasn’t supposed to send classified information in email regardless of whether it was a personal email address or a state address. The fact is that when you are handling classified material there are going to be some inconveniences involved.

Incorrect. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Respectively.

@Sage_Rat

You don’t have to be technologically knowledgeable to get the idea, “China is reading all (100%) of your e-mails.”

Yes, I agree, which is pretty much the whole thesis of my thread here.

[adaher]

@jayjay

Frankly, I don’t care if she’s convicted of killing Vince Foster before or after the convention. She’s STILL better than anyone who’s ever been running on the Republican side this cycle. Anyone.

And the voters will get to judge that if she’s indicted after being nominated, with no switches allowed. You either choose Sanders now or never. It’s not “Clinton, then if indicted, go with Sanders.”

[Trinopus]

@adaher

. . . with no switches allowed. . . .

Cite?

(Also, this is absurd. There isn’t even a criminal investigation. You’re imagining things if you think an indictment is in the offing. You might as well bring up Benghazi again. Seriously: this is a really dumb idea, and is not going to happen.)

[Jophiel]

@adaher

Because once she’s nominated, she’s the candidate. No backsies.

Well, not necessarily. If she was to withdraw between the convention and the election then the Democratic party picks a new nominee.

Since the time of Andrew Jackson’s run for the presidency in 1828, individual political parties have had the job of filling any vacancy on their national ticket, either that of their presidential or vice-presidential candidate. If one of their candidates vacates the ticket after they are nominated, either because of death or withdrawal, the party selects a replacement.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party’s nod.

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party’s responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.

You’re voting on electoral college members to pick a president in December, not on a specific person. Provided that the DNC can get the electoral college members who stay in line, the candidate for president is whoever they want it to be.

[Johnny_Ace]

The same process would happen if the vacancy were to occur after the general election but before the Electoral College voting. If a vacancy should occur on the winning ticket, it would then be the party’s responsibility to fill it and provide a candidate for whom their electors could vote.

That would be chaos. I would think that the likelihood would be that the opposing party’s candidate would win in that situation. You can’t just apply states’ electoral votes to a new candidate.

[Grumman]

@Johnny_Ace

That would be chaos. I would think that the likelihood would be that the opposing party’s candidate would win in that situation.

I agree. If the Democratic Party tells everyone Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, and then have to pick someone else because the best person for the job is being indicted for criminal negligence in her handling of classified information, the Democratic Party’s credibility will be shaken and their endorsement will be less effective.

[adaher]

Especially since they can’t claim ignorance about what she did. But sure, there are various ways to change the candidate, depending on state ballot laws, and I guess the EC could be a final shot at doing a switcheroo.

My point was simply that I don’t want to hear whining if for whatever reason the switch can’t be successfully pulled off. The party had every opportunity to back a challenger and declined. The voters were well informed of her issues. There’s just no excuse if it all goes tits up between the convention and the election.

[GIGObuster]

@Grumman

I agree. If the Democratic Party tells everyone Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job, and then have to pick someone else because the best person for the job is being indicted for criminal negligence in her handling of classified information, the Democratic Party’s credibility will be shaken and their endorsement will be less effective.

That would be a big problem if the Democrats had a choice like the Republicans have now, that choice looks like picking between Tamerlane and Attila the Hun. The Democrats “problem” is to choose between two politicians that look like Margaret Thatcher and Benjamin Disraeli.

I actually do not see a big issue for a switch among the Democrats if it is needed. The republicans are the ones that wished that they had the “problems” the democrats have now.

[adaher]

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.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

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/uploads/2012/08/trialheats1980.png

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

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-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/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-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.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

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?

[adaher]

Well, if you’re cool with nontransparency, even to the extent of destroying federal records…

[Sherrerd]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

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.

[Fear_Itself]

@adaher

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?

[adaher]

The IG report found a few emails that she didn’t turn over that were work emails.

[elucidator]

And who knows what’s in them? Could be anything! Could be damning evidence of…something!

[ElvisL1ves]

Be charitable. It’s all he’s got.

[adaher]

@elucidator

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.

[Moriarty]

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.