News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[mheslep]

This seems a bit small.

Sorry, B, not M. Fixed earlier.

 

[mheslep]

The idea of paying this type of debt off

Nations States don't need to entirely pay of their debt, ever. What they should do is keep the debt well below ~90% of the Gross National Product, which the US can do by i) balancing the budget in the near term with the current spending and revenue, or ii) kicking economic growth into high gear.

Our main result is that whereas the link between growth and debt seems relatively weak at “normal” debt levels, median growth rates for countries with public debt over roughly 90 percent of GDP are about one percent lower than otherwise;

where one percent of the US GDP is currently a hit of $170B/year.

 

[Dr Transport]

Also, let's stop the mud slinging and leave that to the candidates. Let's discuss the issues, the economy, education, social security, aging infrastructure, you know the issues that are important that actual candidates should be focused on.

Here's a thought, as opposed to funding ObamaCare, put that money into upgrading and fixing our infrastructure (power grid, roads, bridges etc...) that way they'd create a ton of jobs that would provide healthcare for their employees...

 

[Evo]

Here's a thought, as opposed to funding ObamaCare, put that money into upgrading and fixing our infrastructure (power grid, roads, bridges etc...) that way they'd create a ton of jobs that would provide healthcare for their employees...

My daughter can now afford her life saving medication that would have cost $900 a month and put it out of her reach thanks to "Obama Care". THANK YOU OBAMA!

But this thread isn't about Obama, so let's get back to the thread topic.

 

[mheslep]

My daughter can now afford her life saving medication that would have cost $900 a month and put it out of her reach thanks to "Obama Care". THANK YOU OBAMA!

But this thread isn't about Obama, so let's get back to the thread topic.

Government health care plans and performance is one of the larger "issues" of the election; it's very much on topic.

 

[Dr Transport]

Government health care plans and performance is one of the larger "issues" of the election; it's very much on topic.

Yes it is and my thought about putting people to work on infrastructure projects helps on multiple fronts, the construction industry benefits, the healthcare and insurance industries benefits, people get decent paying jobs where they make a difference and would earn a living wage.

 

[Evo]

Government health care plans and performance is one of the larger "issues" of the election; it's very much on topic.

Yes, I agree Health care is, I just don't want it sidetracked about Obama, sorry if that was my misinterpretation.

 

[mheslep]

Yes it is and my thought about putting people to work on infrastructure projects helps on multiple fronts, the construction industry benefits, the healthcare and insurance industries benefits, people get decent paying jobs where they make a difference and would earn a living wage.

Politicians pushing govt projects benefit; I don't know that any of the rest is true, especially on borrowed money. See the broken window fallacy.

 

[Evo]

Please make sure the sources are acceptable, unacceptable sources will be deleted.

 

[mheslep]

Over in the ISIS Syria thread someone posted this clip of now Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine describing Obama's unapproved Syrian actions as the "height of public immorality". Clinton has announced several intentions to use force in Syria. I'm guessing she could care less about Article I, like Obama.

 

[Astronuc]

George Stephanopoulos awkwardly corrects Donald Trump when he says Putin 'is not going into Ukraine'
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/george-stephanopoulos-awkwardly-corrects-donald-142510918.html

ABC host George Stephanopoulos corrected Donald Trump after the Republican presidential nominee claimed that Russia was "not going to go into Ukraine."

In an interview on ABC's "This Week" that aired Sunday, Trump asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not going to invade Ukraine, where pro-Russian rebels — and http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1471214117/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5idXNpbmVzc2luc2lkZXIuY29tL3Itc3BlY2lhbC1yZXBvcnQtcnVzc2lhbi1maWdodGVycy1jYXVnaHQtaW4tdWtyYWluZS1jYXN0LWFkcmlmdC1ieS1tb3Njb3ctMjAxNS01AA--/RS=%5EADAOr58LFSDLZ_MF.FjqLHtOF159oY- — have been operating for several years http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1471214117/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5iYmMuY29tL25ld3Mvd29ybGQtZXVyb3BlLTMxNzk2MjI2AA--/RS=%5EADA5WPFe.B08SNJuCnaIvkTBUL69rI- .

"He's not going into Ukraine, just so you understand. He's not going to go to Ukraine," Trump said.

"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" Stephanopoulos replied.

Trump responded by simultaneously criticizing the US's decision not to intervene to stop the annexation of Crimea, a former Ukrainian territory seized by Russia in 2014, and noting that many citizens of Crimea were allegedly supportive of Russia's decision to invade.

Facepalm. Well, since Russia (Putin) is already occupying some of Ukrainian territory, I suppose Trump is technically correct that Putin is not going into Ukraine territory (Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014–present)

Trump noted that many citizens of Crimea were allegedly supportive of Russia's decision to invade. Trump may not be aware that the many citizens were ethnic Russians. Of course, Russia and Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union, but with the break up, Ukraine went independent with its borders intact until Russia start claiming territory. Besides, Crimea was home to the Tatars, if one wants to get historical.

 

[Evo]

if one wants to get historical.

Or hysterical...

 

[mheslep]

Why would Trump do an interview with former Clinton flunky?

 

[Evo]

Why would Trump do an interview with former Clinton flunky?

Are you trying to say that Stephanopoulos isn't a valid news person? Because that would be really wrong.

I need an answer.

 

[Evo]

Over in the ISIS Syria thread someone posted this clip of now Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine describing Obama's unapproved Syrian actions as the "height of public immorality". Clinton has announced several intentions to use force in Syria. I'm guessing she could care less about Article I, like Obama.

Seems to be completely against Trump.

 

[rootone]

I am an outsider, but I think Hillary has this in the bag, as long she can remember where she put her bag down.

 

[mheslep]

Are you trying to say that Stephanopoulos isn't a valid news person? Because that would be really wrong.

I need an answer.

First sentence from his wiki:

"George Robert Stephanopoulos (born February 10, 1961) is an American journalist and political operative for the Democratic party"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos

His background includes many years working for ABC as on-air broadcaster.

His background also includes: war room hatchet man in the 1991 Clinton campaign ("you'll never work in Democratic politics again") , subsequent staffer years in the Clinton White House, recent $100k of donations to the Clinton Foundation that led to his recusal from ABC debate moderation, and his "I love you too" self quote to Mrs Clinton in his autobiography.

 

[Astronuc]

A former acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell on Donald Trump:

“These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-cia-c...trump-national-security-threat-135919412.html

Morell endorses Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/o...the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html

 

[phinds]

“These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law”

I heard a specialist in personality disorders on one of the talk shows the other morning explain Trump perfectly. He was careful to stress that he has not examined Trump personally, but also said that Trump has made so many public statements that he feels very confident in his diagnosis.

He says that Trump has a rare, but not unique, personality disorder which usually evolves as a very strong combative response to early childhood feelings of inadequacy, so it indicates a personality that is very strong in some ways. The result of this personality disorder is that the person actually lives in an parallel universe where EVERYTHING he says is true. It has nothing to do with sanity or intelligence or integrity or honesty or lack of any of those, it’s just a natural trait of people with this rare disorder. Trump can’t help but spout opinions on everything. I sympathize so far since I do that, but where he leaves me behind is that as soon as he says anything, in his worldview it immediately becomes reality and he takes any contrary views as being either nonsensical or an attack on his worldview. Further, his deep seated feelings of inadequacy tend to make that usually fall on the side of it being a personal attack against him. So he absolutely DOES believe all his lies and nonsense. It’s amazing that he ever backtracks even slightly on anything.

To me this completely explains Trump. It’s certainly true that people DO attack him, so that’s not all in his head by any stretch, but sometimes the “attacks” do seem to be in his head. Much more importantly though is that his grasp on reality is totally and severely distorted by this personality disorder.

It’s frightening to think that it is still possible that this man could become President.

@Evo I realize that "I heard someone on a talk show" is not much of a source, so I won't be offended if you want to remove this post but it SO explains Trump, to me at least, that I could not help but share it.

 

[jim hardy]

He says that Trump has a rare, but not unique, personality disorder which usually evolves as a very strong combative response to early childhood feelings of inadequacy, so it indicates a personality that is very strong in some ways.

Some call that "Street Smarts" .

..............
Edit by Mod: Aww, very nice article about Hillary, but I am afraid 1993 is pushing the envelope.

 

[phinds]

Some call that "Street Smarts" .

Which completely ignores the rest of what he had to say which is more relevant.

 

[Evo]

I heard a specialist in personality disorders on one of the talk shows the other morning explain Trump perfectly. He was careful to stress that he has not examined Trump personally, but also said that Trump has made so many public statements that he feels very confident in his diagnosis.

We do need a link I had found several the other day but didn't want to rub salt in the wounds.

‘Is Donald Trump plain crazy?’ Big-name writers now questioning GOP nominee’s sanity.

Is Donald Trump insane?

That’s the question being asked in recent days by prominent columnists, both liberal and conservative, about the Republican presidential nominee.

“During the primary season, as Donald Trump’s bizarre outbursts helped him crush the competition, I thought he was being crazy like a fox,” Eugene Robinson wrote in an op-ed (“Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?”) published Tuesday in the Washington Post.

“Now I am increasingly convinced that he’s just plain crazy,” Robinson continued. “I’m serious about that. Leave aside for the moment Trump’s policies, which in my opinion range from the unconstitutional to the un-American to the potentially catastrophic. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that Trump’s grasp on reality appears to be tenuous at best.”

Robinson was not the only newspaper writer to recently ask such a blunt question about Trump’s fitness for office.

“One wonders if Republican leaders have begun to realize that they may have hitched their fate and the fate of their party to a man with a disordered personality,” Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote in a separate Washington Post editorial on Monday. “We can leave it to the professionals to determine exactly what to call it. Suffice to say that Donald Trump’s response to the assorted speakers at the Democratic National Convention has not been rational.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-sanity-mental-health-000000384.html

 

[Dotini]

A former acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell on Donald Trump:
“These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law”

To the degree that these remarks are accurate, it is all the more astonishing and historic that so many voters have seen fit to make him nominee for president. The system, or establishment, must have done some things very, very wrong in order to provoke such a reaction from the citizenry.

 

[Evo]

To the degree that these remarks are accurate, it is all the more astonishing and historic that so many voters have seen fit to make him nominee for president. The system, or establishment, must have done some things very, very wrong in order to provoke such a reaction from the citizenry.

Or it is a reflection on Americans in general, IMO. No insult intended, I'm just shocked that anyone would think that Trump, of all people, is qualified. The end, I don't intend to argue about it, it would be pointless, but nontheless, these people need to realize the danger Trump represents.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-cia-c...trump-national-security-threat-135919412.html

Very eye opening news video.

Ex-CIA chief backs Clinton, calls Trump national security threat

A former acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency just publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton and denounced Donald Trump as a threat to national security.

Michael Morell, a 33-year CIA veteran, who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, has served presidents from both parties and voted for politicians from either side of the aisle. As a government official, he chose to keep his preferences among presidential candidates private until Friday, when he announced his support for Clinton in the New York Times.

Morell — who was with President George W. Bush on Sept. 11 and President Obama when the U.S. took out Osama bin Laden — said he will vote for Clinton in November and do everything he can until then to help her win the election.

“Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief,” he wrote. “I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”

 

[phinds]

To the degree that these remarks are accurate, it is all the more astonishing and historic that so many voters have seen fit to make him nominee for president. The system, or establishment, must have done some things very, very wrong in order to provoke such a reaction from the citizenry.

I don't think there is any possible question but what that is the case. Our gridlocked congress is one thing and the way Wall Street bankers brought down the financial system and then not only did not go to jail, most of them walked away with large bonuses makes us look like a 3rd world country. People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same, and he is TERRIFIC at making promises he can't keep (even more so than most politicians, all of whom do it). Sadly, there is a strong trend of isolationism on top of this and some racism as well (although I don't think the majority of Trumps supporters are racists)

 

[russ_watters]

We do need a link I had found several the other day but didn't want to rub salt in the wounds.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-sanity-mental-health-000000384.html

To paraphrase what people are saying in the link: "I don't like him, so he must be crazy."

I especially enjoyed the one that said "he lies like other people breathe" in light of Hillary's "admission" yesterday that she "may have short circuited" the truth regarding the investigation into her email practices. "Short circuited"? Yeah: we know she lied. She knows she lied. She knows we know she lied. All politicians are the same here. They tell self-serving lies as easily as breathing, with the only limitation being what they think they can get away with. The only difference between Trump and any other politician is that he's more spur-of-the-moment than most. But in terms of who's lies and self-servingness are worse, there really is no contest: Trump's lies about stuff like whether he met Putin are basically meaningless whereas Hillary's lie was about something she did that risked national security over her self-servingness. Hillary's is much, much worse. And look, she got away with it! (Unless it costs her the election...)

 

[mheslep]

Some call that "Street Smarts" .

..............
Edit by Mod: Aww, very nice article about Hillary, but I am afraid 1993 is pushing the envelope.

1993, when she was in the White House, is dated and somehow irrelevant?

 

[Dr Transport]

Some call that "Street Smarts" .

..............
Edit by Mod: Aww, very nice article about Hillary, but I am afraid 1993 is pushing the envelope.

I worked for a guy who was very much like him, lived in a parallel universe where he was the only one that was right, sounds like a narcissist.

 

[mheslep]

...

I especially enjoyed the one that said "he lies like other people breathe" in light of Hillary's "admission" yesterday that she "may have short circuited" the truth regarding the investigation into her email practices. "Short circuited"? Yeah: we know she lied. She knows she lied. She knows we know she lied. All politicians are the same here. They tell self-serving lies as easily as breathing, with the only limitation being what they think they can get away with. The only difference between Trump and any other politician is that he's more spur-of-the-moment than most. But in terms of who's lies and self-servingness are worse, there really is no contest: Trump's lies about stuff like whether he met Putin are basically meaningless whereas Hillary's lie was about something she did that risked national security over her self-servingness. Hillary's is much, much worse. And look, she got away with it! (Unless it costs her the election...)

The pants on fire quote was

"Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."

Reminiscent of Bill digging in deeper in the face of glaringly obvious evidence, i.e., "I did not have relations ..."

 

[Dr Transport]

Reminiscent of Bill digging in deeper in the face of glaringly obvious evidence, i.e., "I did not have ..."

Are we going to get into the definition of "is" again...

 

[Astronuc]

People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same,

I can appreciate the frustration that folks have with the system, but Trump is part of a different system, and that doesn't include folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum or many of his supporters. He's stiffed contractors on various of his projects, his bankruptcies shorted creditors and contractors, his Trump U was essentially a scam, . . . . He is definitely not for the little guy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...trump-not-paying-his-bills-reports-claim.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-business-plan-left-a-trail-of-unpaid-bills-1465504454

Since he hired John Paulson (The Big Short), I would imagine that he would 'short' the country.

 

[Evo]

1993, when she was in the White House, is dated and somehow irrelevant?

To the rules for this forum.

 

[mheslep]

Are we going to get into the definition of "is" again...

This time, I don't see more carefully parsed word play from Hillary Clinton on the Sunday interview, but either some kind of Machiavellian 'the base will believe me no matter what' denial play, or a Nixonian, 'I said it therefore it's the truth' delusion.

 

[Evo]

I'd rather have an intelligent politician that is sane, with the normal things a politician might do, very little I approve of, I assume that they all have skeletons in their closet" than a person that seems to be rowing with one oar in the water, that we know has a long history of dishonesty , that even now is making up crazy stories ($400 million to Iran, want want me to post that one?)

Trump first discussed the video on Wednesday.

"I'll never forget the scene this morning. And remember this: Iran - I don't think you've heard this anywhere but here - Iran provided all of that footage, the tape of taking that money off that airplane," Trump told supporters at a rally in Daytona Beach, Florida.

"Now, here's the amazing thing: Over there, where that plane landed, top secret. They don't have a lot of paparazzi. You know, the paparazzi doesn't do so well over there, right? And they have a perfect tape. Done by obviously a government camera. And the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane, right? That means that, in order to embarrass us further, Iran sent us the tapes, right? It's a military tape. It's a tape that was a perfect angle, nice and steady, nobody getting nervous because they're going to be shot because they're shooting a picture of money pouring off a plane."

He added, "And Iran released that tape, which is of quality like these guys have. Iran released that tape so that we will be embarrassed."

But several senior U.S. officials involved in the Iran negotiations have told The Associated Press they weren't aware of any such footage. Instead, the campaign said in an email late Wednesday that Trump was simply referring to footage "shown on all major broadcasts this morning."

A Trump spokeswoman told the Washington Post, the video Trump saw was grainy nighttime footage of people getting off a small plane, holding bags. "Geneva, January 17," the footage is clearly labeled. Trump apparently assumed that this footage depicted the cash transfer — and concocted the story on his own about how the footage was acquired and the motivations for its release.

Perhaps even more unbelievably, Trump then repeated his original claim Thursday at a rally in Portland, Maine — even after his campaign said that Trump had been mistaken.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-rare-admission-notes-mistake-iran-video-142429794--election.html

And his claim that the NFL sent him a letter about the debates, the NFL says they sent no letter.

And the claim that the Koch brothers invited him to a meeting, the Koch Brothers said they asked him to no meeting.

And his claims of meeting and being friends with Putin... and if these haven't already been posted (I believe they are in previous posts, I have them all).

 

[Astronuc]

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told Chaffetz during one of his opening exchanges, though the director declined to state whether Clinton lied publicly regarding her emails during her testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last October.

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

Clinton's statements about the emails are certainly troubling. As Secretary of State, it was part of her job requirements to know and protect classified information. She may not have intentionally sent classified information to those who should not receive it, but the information was maintained on an unsecure server, so in that sense it was a breach of protocol.

I would like to see someone like Colin Powell for President.

 

[Evo]

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

Clinton's statements about the emails are certainly troubling. As Secretary of State, it was part of her job requirements to know and protect classified information. She may not have intentionally sent classified information to those who should not receive it, but the information was maintained on an unsecure server, so in that sense it was a breach of protocol.

I would like to see someone like Colin Powell for President.

Powell used personal e-mail for work.

Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.

“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

 

[jim hardy]

I don't think there is any possible question but what that is the case. Our gridlocked congress is one thing and the way Wall Street bankers brought down the financial system and then not only did not go to jail, most of them walked away with large bonuses makes us look like a 3rd world country. People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same,

Amen.

I would like to see someone like Colin Powell for President.

You know, I've long thought the same thing. A decent well spoken man.
I'd rather hoped Trump would pick him for VP.
Yes, he had his "Patna" moment on Iraq; most of us have one somewhere along our way.

 

[Evo]

Colin Powell was a good guy. I'd vote for him for President.

 

[Evo]

People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same,

And that is SO dangerous and foolhardy, you just can't hand over the leadership of a country to someone that seems to be mentally ill. This is not a joke. This is very serious. I don't think people realize just how serious it is. Thankfully a lot of people do now seem to be getting it.

 

[phinds]

And that is SO dangerous and foolhardy, you just can't hand over the leadership of a country to someone that seems to be mentally ill. This is not a joke. This is very serious. I don't think people realize just how serious it is. Thankfully a lot of people do now seem to be getting it.

It just seems like in America today critical thinking is sadly missing in a huge swath of the population. Perhaps it was ever thus, but the results are much more in evidence and dramatic this time around.

 

[Astronuc]

Colin Powell was a good guy. I'd vote for him for President.

Unfortunately, he is 79, so I don't think he's up to it. He has some good experience.

Powell used personal e-mail for work.

Hopefully, it wasn't classified material. It might have been social type stuff, or non-official stuff.

 

[Bystander]

Perhaps it was ever thus,

... 'twas.

more in evidence and dramatic

? Nerp.

 

[Astronuc]

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/12/48527...inton-so-why-arent-third-parties-doing-better

Americans Aren’t Excited About Their Presidential Choices - this year, and apparently in 1992

Only 43 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaners and 40 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners are “very” or “fairly satisfied” with this year’s presidential candidates. That’s low, but not unprecedented; in 1992, voters were slightly more displeased.

Unfortunately for George H. W. Bush, the economy had started to improve in the third quarter of 1992, but it wasn't apparent until the middle of the 4th quarter, after the election. Clinton was the beneficiary of Bush's policies on increasing taxes and reducing deficits.Some Bernie Sanders Supporters Finding A New Home Within The Green Party
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/48896...ers-finding-a-new-home-within-the-green-party

And for others, there is the Libertarian Party

 

[Evo]

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/12/48527...inton-so-why-arent-third-parties-doing-better

well, they aren't people I'd vote for. Hillary is better than any 3rd party for me, and WAY better than Trump.

 

[NTL2009]

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

...

But in the testimony to Congress later, Comey was asked specifically if HRC lied to the public. And he acknowledged that she did.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-comey-testifies-before-congress/chaffetz-to-comey/

Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, read Mrs. Clinton’s public statements about her email account to Mr. Comey and repeatedly asked: is that true?...

Mr. Comey repeatedly said that Mrs. Clinton’s statements were not true.

“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified,” Mr. Gowdy said.
Mr. Comey said that description was “not true.”

Mr. Gowdy noted that Mrs. Clinton said there was no classified material on her servers.
“There was classified email,” Mr. Comey said.

Mr. Gowdy said that Mrs. Clinton claimed that she turned over all work-related emails.
“We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned,” Mr. Comey said.

So when HRC said she "may have short circuited" the truth regarding the investigation into her email practices." She was then lying about her lying!

What I find striking, is how she lies about things she can be so easily outed on. This was high profile lying, and recent. If we are talking about personality disorders, isn't this the sign of one? She just seems to think she can get away with any old lie. Like the "under sniper fire" 'incident'. Like Bill's "I didn't inhale". No one believed that, but no one could disprove it either. So I guess that at least makes some twisted sense for a lie.

Yes, the choices are bleak, but I can't vote for someone with these sort of pathetic, patronizing lies, and that has been "extremely careless" with classified information, and acting such that Comey said that "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation". So her actions in handling classified material were "unreasonable". Pretty damning.

I'd like to know why the FBI allowed HRC to sort the emails? When does someone under investigation get to pick and choose which evidence is turned over? Doesn't the FBI usually come in and grab everything, computers, disk drives, files? And to find classified info among the deleted emails - isn't that cause for charging her with obstruction of justice?

And why didn't the FBI question the statements she made publicly? If they did, she would be guilty of lying to the FBI.

I can only guess that those gaps were to give her the wiggle room to avoid prosecution. I have no other explanation. Sounds 'rigged ' to me.

-NTL2009

 

[Astronuc]

And why didn't the FBI question the statements she made publicly? If they did, she would be guilty of lying to the FBI.

Her public statements weren't part of the investigation. It is not illegal to make false statements to the public. It is illegal to lie to the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. According to Comey, she was truthful to the FBI, so that does not clear her in front of Congress or in the public domain.

I'd like to know why the FBI allowed HRC to sort the emails? When does someone under investigation get to pick and choose which evidence is turned over? Doesn't the FBI usually come in and grab everything, computers, disk drives, files? And to find classified info among the deleted emails - isn't that cause for charging her with obstruction of justice?

I'm not sure that is the case. I believe they had the hard-drives from the servers, and they retrieved and reviewed the materials themselves. Clinton did sent email to the Department of State.

Here is the FBI statement about their investigation.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Comey said that "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation".

I certainly agree with Comey.

From the FBI statement, the "investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way," I've have to wonder about the grossly negligent way. Was she just negligent, as opposed to grossly negligent.

Regarding use of servers and mobile devices:

Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

and there's more in the statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Powell used personal e-mail for work.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

Again: that very limited statement does not address what it is that Hillary did that was so bad:
1. Hillary used a personal SERVER.
2. Hillary sent/received classified info on it.

Powell did neither of those things as far as we know. That isn't the first time you've tried to falsely equate what they did and you really should stop: they are not comparable.

 

[Evo]

Again: that very limited statement does not address what it is that Hillary did that was so bad:
1. Hillary used a personal SERVER.
2. Hillary sent/received classified info on it.

Powell did neither of those things as far as we know. That isn't the first time you've tried to falsely equate what they did and you really should stop: they are not comparable.

I think using public e-mail can be less safe than using a private encrypted server. I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree. Don't forget that I used to set up e-mail servers for ISP's for a living so I know what I'm talking about. Some were safe some were in some guy's basement.

 

[russ_watters]

I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree.

You disagree with the Inspector General!

...and forgot to mention #2...

 

[Evo]

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?

We don't know what Powell sent, aren't those emails missing now?

And I promise not to bring up Powell's forward thinking use of e-mail, when many people he worked with wouldn't use it, you as usual are right, it can seem like an unfair comparison, BUT I KNOW WHAT I MEAN.