13
   

Hillary's email scandal will never go away

 
 
revelette2
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 01:28 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
I think Bill Clinton makes a persuasive case that it was what he didn't do, rather than what did do, that contributed to the financial crisis. There aren't very compelling arguments out there that repealing the Glass-Steagall Act -- the law that separated commercial and investment banking -- contributed much to the crisis. Some, in fact, say it did the opposite, as it allowed commercial banks to help stabilize the system by buying investment banks, as happened when J.P. Morgan acquired Bear Stearns.

But avoiding the regulation of derivatives was a major error. And Clinton is pretty honest on that point. He thinks Republicans would have stopped him from actually doing anything about derivatives, but that doesn't absolve him of the responsibility for at least thinking he should do something about derivatives. He does, however, say that his team was pretty convinced derivatives would remain a niche market. And there's reason to believe him. I like posting this graph -- I posted it two days ago, in fact -- and it fits well here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/fig-posen-20090507-1.gif

There was a massive acceleration in the size of the derivatives market between 2003 and 2008. You're looking at a 300 percent jump. Something, in other words, changed. Derivatives became more important to the financial system. But it happened after Clinton left office. Which makes it hard to say what he would have done if faced with the 2003 derivatives market as opposed to the 1997 derivatives market.

Clinton swears he was "queasy" about derivatives back in the '90s. Not queasy enough to do anything about them, but enough to bring them up with Alan Greenspan. If the derivatives market had been three or four times larger than it had been in 1997 -- and if it had gotten that way in a matter of years -- maybe Clinton would have gotten downright nauseous and decided something needed to be done. Or maybe not. It's hard to say. But it's not something that Clinton, or his critics, can prove or disprove. In the mid-to-late '90s, we were barely beginning to connect the dots on the tech bubble. The housing bubble was still a decade away.

Also: I find it sort of troubling that Clinton can't remember the name of, and Peter Baker doesn't seem familiar with the very existence of, Long-Term Capital Management, the hedge fund that blew up in the late '90s. By this point in the financial crisis, hasn't everyone read -- or at least pretended to read -- Roger Lowenstein's When Genius Failed?


source
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 01:31 pm
@edgarblythe,
Edgar, I thought you said you guys didn't need to stoop to this level, I am dismayed.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 04:42 pm
@maxdancona,
About 40% of voters so far.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 04:50 pm
@revelette2,
Have you noticed the media has quit adding in the last paragraph of the e mail rants that they werent classified when she sent them but were classified secret 2 or 3 years later. I wonder which of the 1% paid for that little favor just before the voting starts?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 05:16 pm
@RABEL222,
If you read carefully, you will see that they are not saying that now, which is why it is not in the newest reports.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 05:51 pm
@Lash,
Thomas,

An email was found by the State Department wherein Hillary told an aide to scrub the classified heading off of sensitive information so it could be sent unsecured.

That is a fact.

The 22 emails that State refuses to release are suspected to be evidence of her doing the same thing - having the Top Secret classification removed from Top Secret documents so they could be sent to her unsecured server.

The fact that they weren't classified as Top Secret is because she had an aide to delete that designation. How very Clintonian to repeat her excuse "they weren't classified as Top Secret when I sent them..."

It really does depend on what your definition of is is...

She.is.guilty. (Translation for Clinton fans: She exists in a state of having committed a crime.)
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2016 06:48 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

She.is.guilty. (Translation for Clinton fans: She exists in a state of having committed a crime.)


Yes, this is very much on the mark. A good translation.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 08:41 am
@edgarblythe,
They are also not saying it was, they haven't determined, last I looked. Which I find odd. I mean, they should know if they have looked at the emails how they are marked when they were sent. Hillary is saying they were not marked. SD is saying, not determined yet, bears repeating.

The emails you started this thread with are the emails which were just released Friday are they not? If so, that means it is a separate batch of released emails in which Lash conjectures facts to suit her narrative. Unless I am mistaken, correct me if I am, we are talking about two separate batches are we not? The emails which started this thread have not been released because the SD determined they were top secret and couldn't be released so we do not in fact know anything about them, scrubbed or otherwise.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 09:10 am
@revelette2,
I meant a separate batch of emails that were going to be released but were not because they were determined top secret. (I said released emails above in my previous post.) Whether they were top secret when they were sent or received has not been determined.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 09:36 am
@revelette2,
You seem to be trying furiously not to be informed of the facts.

Read and learn. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/


excerpt from second link, the smoking gun
New batch includes a 2011 email in which Clinton instructed an aide to strip a classified document of its identifying markings and send it via non-secure email

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html#ixzz3ypvbGG8O
_________________________________________

Like her husband who tried to defend a lie under oath by equivocating about the definition of is, the lawyerese Hillary Clinton has been hiding behind has been, "I didn't send or receive any emails marked Top Secret."

- because she instructed her aid to scrub the Top Secret designation off the emails before sending them to her unsecured server.

- and now she's busted.

I don't know why she's not in jail.


revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 09:53 am
@Lash,
Your link is from 1/8/16. Edgar started this thread talking about emails which can't be released because they were deemed top secret by the SD, his link is 1/29/16. Two separate batches of emails. In the article in which started this thread, there was no mention of any scrubbed emails being deemed top secret, you just put the two together and made five.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 10:33 am
@revelette2,
LOL. True-to-form Clintonians. I guess they're the Trumps of the Democrat party. They could shoot somebody in broad daylight and their fans would look the other way.
___________________________________________
An excerpt -

The State Department acknowledged for the first time Friday that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency, elevating the issue in the presidential campaign three days before the hotly contested Iowa caucuses.

The information was contained in 22 emails, across seven email chains, that were sent or received by Clinton, according to a State Department spokesman. The emails will not be disclosed as part of an ongoing release of Clinton’s email correspondence from her years as secretary of state, even in highly redacted form.
________________________

More -
Clinton has also said that the information in question was not classified at the time the emails were sent — a point that intelligence officials have disputed.
________________________
I guess if this isn't a vast right wing conspiracy, it's a vast intelligence community conspiracy... I'm sure Juanita Broaddrick is in there somewhere...


revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 10:50 am
@Lash,
Nevertheless, The emails you were referring to was a different batch than the one edgar. started this thread with. I am aware intelligence officials dispute Clinton's account, however, on the emails the state department deemed top secret and therefore can't be released, the state department has not determined whether they were marked classified at the time.

I think, think being operative word, intelligence officials say the emails were classified whether they were marked that way or not. Up until this latest email news, state department has agreed with Clinton that were not classified at the time they were sent. However, with this latest emails news, the state department has not made a determination as to whether they were marked classified at the time they were sent, they do say however that they were top secret. Whether they came to that determination after reviewing them or whether they were marked that way when they were received or sent on Clinton's email server the state department has not made that determination.

You may call it Clinton speak or whatever, but those are the clear facts as they stand now, in the way I understand it.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 10:53 am
@revelette2,
They are one and the same, as I started the thread with. You just did not read it carefully.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 11:00 am
@edgarblythe,
Ok, please, show me on the link you provided for at the beginning of the thread where they are part of the same emails which were talked about in the news a few weeks ago as being scrubbed. You said yesterday they were new emails. I read it carefully, there was no mention of which batch the emails were held back, if they were part of the ones released last month on the ones released Friday.

Quote:
The timing of it is quite suspect,” said Vilsack, a former Iowa governor.

Steven Aftergood, who heads a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, said he thought the attention to Clinton’s emails was overblown, partly because similar classification disputes are common across government.

Still, he called Clinton’s public squabble with the intelligence community unusual.

“I think this is a unique set of circumstances in which a presidential candidate is engaged in a debate with an intelligence agency over her own record as a former official,” he said.

The State Department’s conclusion came as it has worked to process 55,000 pages of Clinton’s correspondence for public release, including about 1,000 pages that were released Friday night. Clinton has said that she deleted 31,000 additional emails in 2014, deeming them purely personal.

The State Department has been under a court order to release the documents in batches, once a month, as part of a lawsuit filed by reporter Jason Leopold of Vice News, who sued after the department failed to respond promptly to his request for the public documents.

A judge had ordered the department to release all of the emails by the end of January, but attorneys for the department said this week that they would miss the deadline, and requested another month.

That means the last of Clinton’s emails will not be released until the end of February — after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — and just before Super Tuesday, when voters in 11 states will cast ballots.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 11:08 am
I can only say that we are talking at cross purposes. I provided the very latest on the scandal as of the day I posted the thread. You have done nothing but criticize me for using it.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 11:17 am
@edgarblythe,
I am trying to understand exactly which batch the emails were deemed top secret by the state department. I don't think it makes it clear in your article which batch there were part of.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 11:32 am
Possibly the article was written before more details were known.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 02:01 pm
@edgarblythe,
If the article was referring to an earlier batch of emails which were released rather than the ones just released Friday, you would think the author of the article would have made that clear. They didn't mention anything which would lead one to think they were talking of an earlier batch of released emails.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 02:18 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Where's the evidence of your claim?

I can't prove a negative. All I can say is that even in reports of the most recent investigation, I have not heard any intelligence agency allege that any of those 23 classified e-mails was classified at the time Clinton sent or received them. Rather, as the New York Times puts it, "The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies." And the upgrade happened long after Clinton left the State Department.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 03:00:05