80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
snood
 
  4  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 07:03 am
@Lash,
Hey I'm just one guy. I see you as jumping most quickly to defcon intensity in the discussions on Sanders and Hillary. I may be wrong.
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 01:33 pm
@snood,
I just haven't felt angry - even when I was in pre-ignore mode earlier. I guess I come across like that. Tone-impaired.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 03:41 pm
Just. Wow.
What do you make of Hillary's latest news?
http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking-cheryl-mills-to-destroy-emails-about-hillary-clinton/

An excerpt: In a letter sent to the U.S. State Department and just filed today with U.S. federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the counsel for Cheryl Mills wrote: “Ms. Mills does not believe that she has paper copies of potential records in her possession. Following our production on August 10, 2015 [of the defense counsel’s version of the electronic records], we have instructed her to delete any and all electronic records in her possession.” That is a far stretch from a statement by Ms. Mills under penalty of perjury, and she and her lawyers are planning to delete the emails Judge Sullivan wants produced? Judicial Watch has made an emergency filing in Judge Sullivan’s court to stop the further destruction of evidence of what may very well be assorted criminal conduct and violations of numerous federal laws. This all just surfaced in State Department’s status report filed today in response to Judge Sullivan’s order. Yesterday evening, State finally produced some correspondence between it and Hillary’s right and left hands—Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. It has not produced its correspondence with Ms. Clinton, and it is now clear that Ms. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills plan to thumb their noses at the Judge and the State Department. No one is “cooperating,” despite their empty rhetoric to the contrary. Read more at http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking-cheryl-mills-to-destroy-emails-about-hillary-clinton/#ixzz3iMA5YTmZ Follow us: @observer on Twitter | Observer on Facebook Read more at: http://tr.im/z4cbv

Thankfully she's above the law and we should immediately act like this isn't happening.
snood
 
  4  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 04:17 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:


Thankfully she's above the law and we should immediately act like this isn't happening.


I'm beginning to think you don't like Hillary Clinton or something.
Lash
 
  2  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 04:28 pm
@snood,
Laughed out loud.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 04:50 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

I'm beginning to think you don't like Hillary Clinton or something.


Now you've even got me considering the possibility.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 05:06 pm
Well I agree with Lash about Hillary, but I don't agree that Bernie Sanders is the answer. I also think that the absence of any serious Denmocrat challengers in this race is itself a remarkable indicator of something in the current character of the Democrat party. I'm not yet sure what it is, but I don't think it is healthy for them or the country.

In some respects all this seems staged - insubstantial competition for the Democrtat nomination; an incipient third party run by by a dissatisfied pseudo-Republican; etc. Have we seen this movie before?

Trump made his motives clear in the debates. He seeks the favor of strong politicians and expects favors in return later on. He gets the attention and notoriety he obviously craves to boot.

Hard to tell where all this will lead. Hillary is sliding in the polls, but it is not yet clear that she has been seriously damaged. Her campaign is keeping a very short leash on her, apparently in the (understandable) belief that she has little to gain, and, in view of her awkward performances in public, much to lose in any unscripted encounters. All this may well leave her vulnerable in the national election.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 05:23 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Hard to tell where all this will lead.

The D's are going to get hammered for incompetence and for not providing any choice, as always happens when the elite give the masses no choice but one unsuitable leader.

The values of the D party are not consistent with our own, and they do their work poorly. There will be a massive charge for this.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Mon 10 Aug, 2015 08:19 pm
@Lash,
That is a prime example of the kind of nonsense that is used to make attacks.

No one is required to produce emails that don't fulfill the request under the FOIA or a subpeona. Deleting emails not requested is not a criminal act. It is standard for a lawyer to go through requested documents and find which meet the requirements. It is also standard for the courts to give deference to those lawyers since those lawyers risk their license and freedom if they violate the law in deciding which to release.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of a crime. Lack of emails is not evidence that such emails ever existed.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Wed 12 Aug, 2015 03:02 pm
The story has been getting steadily worse for months, I could even end up in charges, but dont worry, I got this. Drunk
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Wed 12 Aug, 2015 03:08 pm
I couldn't resist sharing this:

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11822762_729946520450605_2149671071048909764_n.jpg?oh=fd13ca10b2db361d18a7195dad6fcea1&oe=567FDBEC
roger
 
  2  
Wed 12 Aug, 2015 03:20 pm
@snood,
At least it's funny.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Wed 12 Aug, 2015 05:57 pm
@parados,
Well as Secretary of State Hillary herself issued a general instruction to Department employees restating existing requirements that government servers be used for official e mails. As a minimum she is guilty of rather gross hypocrisy. Today's news reports indicate the Federal Intelligence Community IG has determined that two of a small sample of 40 e mails of hers they reviewed contained Top Secret compartmented SI information. That's a good deal more serious than the offenses for which Gen. Petraeus was convicted. What a larger sample might reveal is of course unknown, but it increasingly appears the Feds will be looking, and an irritated Federal judge will be directing them.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 12 Aug, 2015 06:01 pm
@georgeob1,
I read someplace an interesting point......we cant find out information that the Russians and the Chinese almost certainly have because they almost certainly hacked her server before she scrubbed it. So much for the concepts rights of the people and transparent government.
roger
 
  2  
Wed 12 Aug, 2015 06:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
I guess her server was fairly transparent to someone.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 13 Aug, 2015 07:32 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON — Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed this week to turn over her private email server and a thumb drive containing her emails to the FBI, the latest development in a story that's been the biggest controversy in her early campaign for president.

Since the existence of that private server was first publicly revealed in March, congressional Republicans and government investigators have raised questions about her compliance with federal recordkeeping laws and the handling of classified information.

Here's what we know now:

How much classified information is in these emails? When was it classified, before or after she got it?

Investigators have discovered at least four emails that contained classified information. And McClatchy News Service reported Tuesday that two of those contained "top secret" information, according to the Intelligence Community Inspector General's office.

But the number could be much higher. The four emails were discovered as part of a sample of just 40 emails of the 30,000 Clinton has returned to the State Department. And those 30,490 emails represent only about half the 62,320 emails sent and received by Clinton during her tenure as secretary of State. Clinton says the other half are personal.

Clinton maintains she did nothing wrong. "I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," she said last month.

In an email to supporters Wednesday, the Clinton campaign explained further: "It's common for information previously considered unclassified to be upgraded to classified before being publicly released. Some emails that weren't secret at the time she sent or received them might be secret now," communications director Jennifer Palmieri said.

Federal investigators have suggested that's not the case here. The inspectors general have said the emails "contained classified information when they were generated," and "that information remains classified today."

Is there a criminal investigation?

The Justice Department originally characterized the inspector general letters as a "criminal referral," but later reversed itself. The two inspectors general looking into the matter — at the State Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — have said it was not a criminal referral but "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes."

The New York Times, which first reported on the referral, has acknowledged that its original reporting labeling it criminal was at least "confusing." The Times' public editor said the story was an important one, but that the reports of a criminal referral was a "messy and a regrettable chapter" in the newspaper's reporting.

Since then, federal officials have confirmed the existence of an FBI investigation, but have not characterized it as criminal.

What do the emails that have been released reveal?

Most of the emails show Clinton aides briefing her on various issues, and are often simply news stories cut-and-pasted into an e-mail and forwarded to the secretary. The 3,577 emails that have been publicly released to date — many of which have been heavily redacted — also deal with subjects such as her relations with Congress and routine personnel matters.

Among the biggest revelations: Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House aide to President Clinton, played a key advisory role for the secretary of State — including on relations with Libya — despite not having an official role in government, the Times has reported.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the emails also show a keen attention to domestic political issues.

None of the classified emails has been released publicly.

Has Clinton lied about her use of email?

Clinton's statements about her use of email have evolved since the existence of her private e-mail server was first revealed in March.

She at first said she set up the server for the "convenience" of having work and personal emails on one Blackberry device. She has since acknowledged using an iPad to e-mail, and says she regrets not having separate e-mail accounts for official and personal business.

Clinton told CNN last month that she "never had a subpoena" for the emails. But congressional records show such a subpoena was issued in March.

Clinton has also said she has turned over all work-related emails back to the State Department, but has acknowledged that she cannot account for 15 emails with Blumenthal that he turned over but she did not.

What does this have to do with Benghazi?

So far, very little. Although the existence of Clinton's private email server was discovered in the course of a congressional investigation into the 2012 attack on the Libyan consulate, only 8% of the emails released to date mention Benghazi. And Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said he's not interested in the rest.

"I have no jurisdiction over Bolivia or Paraguay or what used to be Somalia. I'm not interested in bridesmaids' dresses or yoga routines," he told CNN on Wednesday. "First of all, it's not my business. Second of all, it's not my jurisdiction. But I am entitled to every document that relates to Libya and Benghazi and what our policy was in Libya and whether anti-western sentiment contributed to the attack or whether it was a spontaneous reaction to a video, as we were told at one point."

So far, the publicly released emails show Clinton intensely involved in the attack and its aftermath, but contain no evidence that Clinton ordered security forces to "stand down," as some Republicans have alleged.

In her email to Clinton supporters Wednesday, Palmieri accused the Benghazi Committee of "spending nearly $6 million in taxpayer money to conduct a partisan witch-hunt designed to do political damage to Hillary in the run-up to the election."


source

So far, IMO, the Libya/Benghazi end is not going to produce much for the republicans, the classified emails might end up being troublesome for Clinton to explain away on the campaign trail. Unless more comes out than right now, she might be able to get through it. What do ya'll think?
engineer
 
  4  
Thu 13 Aug, 2015 07:34 am
@revelette2,
I'm sure she'll get though it. This is the time to get this stuff out since there are still many months before the first vote. What is a sharp pain now will be a dull throb in a couple of months and nothing but a scar by Iowa and New Hampshire.
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Thu 13 Aug, 2015 09:21 am
@engineer,
Well that is certainly the time-honored Clinton formula for suppressing bad news.. Unfortunately evidence suggesting it may not work anymore is fast accumulating. She has lost control of her server, and both a Congressional Committee and a Federal Judge are pushing the investigation of her communications. Serious, potentially criminal, violations of security have already been established, based on a small set of e mails examined, with more likely coming in the weeks ahead.

The issue appears to have both legal substance and legs in the public/media attention span.

You may be whistling in the dark.
revelette2
 
  2  
Thu 13 Aug, 2015 10:13 am
@georgeob1,
Guess we'll see. So far your track record on predicting political outcomes haven't been too good.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Thu 13 Aug, 2015 03:40 pm
@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

So far, IMO, the Libya/Benghazi end is not going to produce much for the republicans, the classified emails might end up being troublesome for Clinton to explain away on the campaign trail. Unless more comes out than right now, she might be able to get through it. What do ya'll think?


Regarding the Benghazi thing, I reluctantly agree. Much as I dislike Clinton, I just don't think there's anything there.

Regarding the email situation as a whole, she has been way too evasive and maybe dishonest about the whole thing. It could and should bite her in the butt.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.68 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 01:22:12