Wait. You can dowse for sex? And now I find out?
Well actually Romney spent most of it in the 30s to mid 40s on favorability … but you are right that Obama ran much higher.
And tis true that if any of her opposition can get favorability up into the mid to upper 50s they will likely beat her unless she her numbers rise above that.
It is not impossible for the winner of the GOP nomination to get there. But looking at this crowd it is pretty improbable.
Only one will get the nomination, presumably the one who makes the best impression. Looking at the field, it looks bad. But that’s like looking at the Florida Marlins and saying they are a bad team. But if you took their best player he’s as good as anyone.
Right now, the Democrats’ best player isn’t even Hillary Clinton. It’s Bernie Sanders.
Nothing? She potentially mishandled classified material. With the integrity peg of her stool kicked out long ago, she can’t afford to lose credibility when it comes to competence.
The media is turning it into a big deal and the Clinton campaign is sure acting like it’s a big deal. Clinton doesn’t normally rush to address controversies. Especially in such a weird, deceptive way. She had the NY Times make very minor changes to the story then went out and tried to muddy the waters by claiming that the story had been substantially revised, as if to imply to those not paying attention that the NY Times had simply gotten it wrong and was correcting themselves.
Turns out her attorney is still in possession of classified material on a thumb drive, according to the IG:
“We can’t tell you what we did with classified material in our possession! That’s classified!”
Hmm, last I checked, Clinton was a private citizen now. She lost her privilege to handle classified material over two years ago, yet held onto it on her private server for quite some time, and even shared it with her attorney, who still has some of it. That’s some pretty serious violations there.
Hate to concur but this analysis has validity.
The point is not whatever the reality is. Whatever the reality is she is perceived as less than completely sincere (could be just her uncomfortable delivery style). The reason that alone is far from a fatal blow is because she is perceived as very competent. I’ll assume that underlings sent her summaries of classified information to her private account and that she had no way of knowing that they were classified … it still falls on her for having set up a system in which a mistake like that was more likely to occur.
She might still be able to win against weak opposition, probably still will, but this one may actually significantly hurt her.
I called it “nearly nothing” because it appears the NYT (as they tend to do with the Clintons) grossly exaggerated and misreported it. If it turns out that Clinton knowingly sent out classified info, then that’s not nearly nothing. If it turns out she unknowingly released classified minutiae, then that’s a bit different, depending on the details. I work with classified data every day, and most of it is not cut-and-dry or having every sentence and paragraph marked with its classification. Much of it is just based on judgment and common sense – a technical document may be marked as “Confidential”, but that doesn’t mean that every word is classified. Government and military workers routinely use common sense to determine what can be discussed and how. When I write an email related to something classified, I know that there are certain things I can’t mention – scheduling, technical specifications, etc. But I can speak in generalities – e.g. “the sonar system design will need to take into account maintenance and parts for repairs”.
So what information was released? Was it like “agent Bob Harris is under cover in Darfour as a rug merchant named Ali”, or more like “our sources in the Maghreb report chatter about activities in Europe”? The first obviously puts people and stuff at risk – the second probably doesn’t harm US security in any way.
The thing is though, none of this would matter if she wasn’t using a private email server and if she still wasn’t in possession of classified material. Her refusal to answer questions about what she did with the classified material she still holds is an underreported story. But then again, it’s been 24 hours. I’m sure the media will get around to demanding some answers there. Like, could her attorney please give the State Department that thumb drive?
How could she possibly not still be in possession of classified material? Was she supposed to go through a lobotomy when she stepped down from State?
From our good friends over at Crooks and Liars, a rather sharp criticism of the NYT on the story.
FWIW - that is the best her hair has ever looked. I wonder if she switched to Wen?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-120585.html?hp=l1_3
Here is what she said in March:
The story suggests that it’s not clear whether she sent or received email with classified material but the WSJ storyseems to be quite clear about this:
I guess there can be parsing about sending classified material versus sending an e-mail with classified information but it really isn’t going to look good.
So was her March statement accurate?
Oh c’mon. You know the files themselves are “the material”, not the ideas in her head.
That Crooks and Liars bit, if accurate, is not just a sharp criticism, it makes the NYT look worse than bad: it makes them out to be at best complete idiots, more likely intentional liars, and possibly both.
Clearly the reality of what the memo actually states cannot be both what Crooks and Liars states and what the NYT states. One is minimally dramatically misrepresenting.
If this just disappears as a story then the C and L version is affirmed and the NYT should, as David Brock of Media Matters suggests, review their own policies and procedures.
I understand that the media, NYT inclusive, wants to create a close race and controversy and will do what they can to create one … but there are lines. If C and L is accurate then this Brian Williams bad.
Meanwhile this is what the WSJ states the letter actually states:
So if I got it right they are saying that some e-mails contained information that they believe, looking at it at this time, should have been classified, in their assessment, now and at that time, but were not.
Uh yeah, that part does not fall on Clinton but on those whose job it is to make the classification decisions at the time.
This does, at this point, seem like media trying to inflate a story beyond its actual facts. I’m personally going to wait to see how it unfolds.
I’m not talking about “ideas” in her head; I’m talking about information. Hard facts, which she has read (or heard, or wrote herself) and remembers. The reason it’s so hard to get security clearance is because once you have a piece of information, you must be assumed to have it for life.
Yes that “information” is what it is clear we are talking about and you are surely aware that the material being referenced are not those bits of information or hard facts in her head that she can remember but actual files be they stored electronically or on paper.
IF it is true that a files contained on a thumbdrive (for example) in her or her lawyer’s possession contain information that is now considered classified (whether or not it previously was considered thus) then such files need to be returned to the proper governmental agency. No, no one is talking about doing a memory sweep of her head. Nor does anyone presume that she remembers all 30,000 emails nor accurately recall the information within it that is now being identified as “should have been identified and handled as classified” but that was not identified as such at the time.
Yes, in Clintonian terms. Just as the Justice Department is not considering investigating HER, just her email account.
Is that an example of adherian terms? To not appreciate a significant difference between investigating the procedures of how information regarding Clinton’s email account has been handled and investigating the person whose account it was?
There is a very substantial difference between making the (false) claim that there was an impending criminal investigation against a particular individual being brought by inspectors general and the reality that a routine referral has been made as there is some disagreement over whether information in some e-mails that were not at the time marked as classified should have been (important to review before information is released under the Freedom of Information Act and as a matter of course to review process by which such differing assessments occur between agencies and evaluators).
(Bolding mine.)
Again, the essence is: “We think there is a possibility that the e-mails may contain information that we think should have been determined to be classified (and if it had been would not have gone to that e-mail account) and that possibility should be investigated as is routine; we have found no e-mails that were categorized as classified by those agencies doing the classification at the time in her files; policies regarding these emails should take that possibility that those agencies may have erred into account regarding FOIA requests.”
I still agree that the separate server (done by others before her or not) increased the risk of errors occurring. But that is old news.
If we are talking about legal jeopardy, of course there’s a huge difference. Clinton is under no threat of going to jail, but I doubt anyone ever thought there was any chance of that happening even if she was being investigated herself.
But from the perspective of political accountability, which is what really matters in this story, there’s absolutely no difference. If the account was misused, then the user is responsible for that misuse.
I guess there’s a big difference in optics between “criminal investigation” and not criminal investigation, so that matters. And the Clinton team was right to demand that the NY Times correct. Although the Times said they got that word from the Justice Department, which makes me willing to bet that the Clinton team first worked those refs before calling the NYT.
Interesting the contrast between adaher’s arguments concerning Clinton here, and his arguments concerning Perry’s indictment. Here, just the fact that she’s being investigated for something she might have done should be enough to sink her political career, but the fact that Perry is being indicted means absolutely nothing, because it hasn’t yet been proven in court that the shady thing he definitely did was illegal.
This is not a difficult concept. Clinton used a private email account to shield herself from transparency. Perry vetoed a bill funding an agency that had a criminal head who wouldn’t resign.
I’d LOVE for that contrast to go before the court of public opinion.