News Hillary Clinton Running for President

[Bandersnatch]

I have no opinion on that, or on the pros and cons of the two systems in general.

 

[Czcibor]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My wife has a Ph.D. in history and has studied a number of primary sources. What aspects of the US nation creation story do you believe to be mythical? Do you think that George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin were all fictional characters? Do you believe that the Declaration of Independence never happened? Do you think that there wasn't a war that was waged between the colonists and Great Britain?

No just your cherry picked interpetation where there is plenty talking about freedom was out of charts. If you don't get it I (sorry for derailing subject) I may show you on some example of let's say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_of_Europe

Sounds funny? But technically speaking partition of Poland is a historical fact, just interpretation may not be taken seriously by any foreigner.

And, oh by the way, I don't worship the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, I have a relatively low opinion of most of them. From the start, the United States has never been a utopia. But I do believe that the Patriots were on to something when they stood up to tyranny.

I know that George III is depicted by Americans as tyrant... However, which exactly tyrannical deeds he made? Reign of terror? Oh yes... he introduced a few taxes like stamp duty and tea tax, and haven't allowed some rich guys (including slave owners) to send their representatives to parliament. Somewhat unimpressive. Especially when one compares taxes from his times to taxes that Americans passed themselves later.

In any case, to bring this back to topic, I think that Clinton's view is like yours. Clinton cares more about "making everything work" (according to her vision and definition of "work"), than she does about defending and protecting the individual rights of the citizens. I think that she thinks the government can never be too big, and I think that in Clinton's America, the government can and should provide for the citizens - cradle to grave. Meanwhile she refuses to acknowledge the rights of the unborn, and she her actions in regards to Benghazi were dishonorable. Clinton cares about Clinton - not the rights of the people.

I'm not sure about her views, but I think that comparing to two last presidents, her husband was quite successful.

 

[EM_Guy]

Czcibor,

You seem to be missing the point. We can debate forever about whether or not the American Revolution was justified. (And honestly, compared to what we have now, King George's injustices seem pretty minor to me). But the whole point is that governments should acknowledge, honor, respect, and defend the individual rights of the citizens. You have said that we have too much talk about rights and not enough talk about making things work. And you haven't acknowledged that the rights that we have should be honored, respected, and defended by our elected officials. By your own words, rights is pretty much a non-issue. What matters is "making things work" (whatever that means).

Throughout history, all too often, governments have cruelly oppressed the people. Surely, you are not ignorant of this. And yet, you say that there is "too much talk of rights." The power and authority entrusted to elected officials is vast - especially for the POTUS. Any individual to be entrusted with that power should prove himself worthy of the trust. The rights of the people ought to be zealously guarded at all times.

I am not saying that we should all have an entitlement mentality. Since there are obligations associated with every right, we need to distinguish between our actual rights and our desires.

 

[EM_Guy]

I'm not sure about her views, but I think that comparing to two last presidents, her husband was quite successful.

I've brought up three issues:

1. The rights of the unborn.
2. The need to define individual rights in a way that maximizes liberty and minimizes tyranny.
3. Benghazi.

Bill Clinton had nothing to do with Benghazi.

Regarding the first two issues, how did Bill Clinton do better than Bush?

Of course, you have been arguing that point #2 should not even be an issue. It is of no surprise to me then that you think that Clinton did better than Bush. (I'm no fan of Bush).

 

[Czcibor]

Regarding the first two issues, how did Bill Clinton do better than Bush?

Of course, you have been arguing that point #2 should not even be an issue. It is of no surprise to me then that you think that Clinton did better than Bush. (I'm no fan of Bush).

Which Bush? Senior? I'd say he was just unlucky - he won Gulf War, which hit economy by high oil prices. He promised no more taxes and reasonably raised taxes which cost him job. Seems good enough. The junior - he got a budget surplus from Bill Clinton times (and Bill Clinton was responsible enough just to keep it to pay back debt to be able to finance already incurred social security promises). Instead he lowered taxes, raised spending (like those Medicare medications), and started one unnecessary and expensive war. (surprisingly a big budget deficit appeared ;) ). Plus he failed supervision job prior to housing bubble (this one was harder, so maybe I should limit blame).

If you mention anything about freedom and free market I'd answer about steel tariffs (not specially legal under WTO) and ethanol fuel production subsidies. ;)

 

[Astronuc]

AP-GfK Poll: Americans view Clinton, Republicans unfavorably
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-americans-view-clinton-republicans-unfavorably-071925104--election.html Certainly the 2016 presidential election will be interesting.

 

[mheslep]

Which Bush? Senior? I'd say he was just unlucky - he won Gulf War, which hit economy by high oil prices. He promised no more taxes and reasonably raised taxes which cost him job. Seems good enough. The junior - he got a budget surplus from Bill Clinton times (and Bill Clinton was responsible enough just to keep it to pay back debt to be able to finance already incurred social security promises). Instead he lowered taxes, raised spending (like those Medicare medications), and started one unnecessary and expensive war. (surprisingly a big budget deficit appeared ;) ). Plus he failed supervision job prior to housing bubble (this one was harder, so maybe I should limit blame).)

You might take a look at actual revenue and spending figures during those years and compare to now before giving narratives on US history. There was no inherited budget surplus just prior to Bush IIs tax reforms, though revenue increased afterwards. That surplus from the 90s was a phenomenon of the dot com boom, and vanished with the dot com crash. And the average deficit during both Bush II terms before the financial panic was a fraction of current deficits.

 

[tom aaron]

All the talk of the American Revolution has some irony. The Americans got rid of a King just to turn the Presidency back into a cult of personality. Washington and Jefferson would cringe in disgust if they heard 'Hail to the Chief'. The antithesis of what they fought for.

Whoever becomes president will benefit from following two duds in a row, Bush Jr and Obama.

Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush would both make decent presidents. Hillary most likely taking on the Margaret Thatcher Iron Lady role...Jeb more managerial. Hillary will evoke more visceral response..love her or hate her. The reverse with Jeb. Like his father, hard to get worked up one way or the other.

Those two will probably run. Every political guru will be advising, commenting, analyzing ad nauseum. Journalists interviewing journalists about the coverage of fellow journalists... All electing the next King. George Washington would barf.

 

[gfd43tg]

I wish we could have some fresh meat instead of another disappointing bush vs Clinton. This seems almost like an oligarchy

 

[russ_watters]

You might take a look at actual revenue and spending figures during those years and compare to now before giving narratives on US history. There was no inherited budget surplus just prior to Bush IIs tax reforms, though revenue increased afterwards. That surplus from the 90s was a phenomenon of the dot com boom, and vanished with the dot com crash. And the average deficit during both Bush II terms before the financial panic was a fraction of current deficits.

I would also add that on Clinton being "responsible", he tried not to be, but the Republicans in Congress (specifically, Gingrich's Contract with America and government shutdowns) would not allow him to be. It is unlikely that there would have been surpluses without that restraint the Republicans imposed on Clinton.

We saw similar action with the sequester and debt ceiling fights of the past few years.

 

[tom aaron]

I wish we could have some fresh meat instead of another disappointing bush vs Clinton. This seems almost like an oligarchy

It's the nature of the beast. Not corrupt or 'wrong' but perhaps democracy just doesn't work that well in a country of over 300 million. There are so many factions, favors, compromises needed that super difficult to build from the bottom up. Bill Clinton And Obama did it so not impossible.

I 'think', perhaps wrongly that most of the power brokers know it will likely be be Clinton vs Bush and the rest is just positioning for a VP spot or setting themselves up for 'next time'.

 

[CalcNerd]

One thing that help Bill Clinton become a good president ie in comparison to nearly all the other recent presidents, is that he was lucky enough to have the line item veto for nearly 3 years of his presidency. Just having that power made the congress a bit less piggy as Bill Clinton could just say, "No!" and perhaps even call out whomever tried to pork barrel for their district. That power made sure that any congressman would be cautious about calling out Bill onto the carpet (that didn't help him a lot, it seems). That power was removed by the courts in 98, about the same time his other issues came out.
.
If other presidents had this power, it may help, but that kind of depends upon the political atmosphere of DC. Behind closed doors, Slick Willie made a lot of deals. I suspect he helped the upper crust of society (reached across the aisle perhaps with hand out, so to speak), but there is something about efficiency of government that certainly came into play during his terms in office.
.
I see a lot of rah, rah, rah, my candidate is great, but THEY all stand in the shadows of our forefathers. As a few here have stated, it is very likely Washington, Adams and Jefferson would barf at the thought of any of these candidates getting into office.

 

[tom aaron]

One thing that help Bill Clinton become a good president ie in comparison to nearly all the other recent presidents, is that he was lucky enough to have the line item veto for nearly 3 years of his presidency. Just having that power made the congress a bit less piggy as Bill Clinton could just say, "No!" and perhaps even call out whomever tried to pork barrel for their district. That power made sure that any congressman would be cautious about calling out Bill onto the carpet (that didn't help him a lot, it seems). That power was removed by the courts in 98, about the same time his other issues came out.
.
If other presidents had this power, it may help, but that kind of depends upon the political atmosphere of DC. Behind closed doors, Slick Willie made a lot of deals. I suspect he helped the upper crust of society (reached across the aisle perhaps with hand out, so to speak), but there is something about efficiency of government that certainly came into play during his terms in office.
.
I see a lot of rah, rah, rah, my candidate is great, but THEY all stand in the shadows of our forefathers. As a few here have stated, it is very likely Washington, Adams and Jefferson would barf at the thought of any of these candidates getting into office.

That's part of the problem. We equate good Presidents with wielding power. We claim to want democracy...but also want a 'strong' President. Somehow get that voice of the People, Congress, in line.

I was never a Reagan fan but had no issue with him taking a long nap every day. A President shouldn't be all that busy unless there is some foreign policy or security issue, crisis happening, etc. Best he be off talking to other leaders, getting briefed by the Pentagon than spending time on the minutia of social issues.

 

[mheslep]

We equate good Presidents with wielding power. We claim to want democracy...but also want a 'strong' President.

Not always. If its true I think it is mostly a modern phenomenon, since, say, FDR. Before that Presidents with some notable exceptions were notable for staying out of the way, most of the time, of the average American.

 

[tom aaron]

Not always. If its true I think it is mostly a modern phenomenon, since, say, FDR. Before that Presidents with some notable exceptions were notable for staying out of the way, most of the time, of the average American.

Agreed. That was my point. 'Today' many praise want a President that has his finger in everything. Previous to FDR, it was the reverse. Eisenhauer was a bit old school, then Kennedy turned it into an elected kingship.

An interesting poll. Over 90% of Canadians did not know the first name of their Prime Minister's wife...or how many children he had (and he's been PM for 9 years). In contrast, in the USA, the President has become some social celebrity like Prince William and Kate.

 

[mheslep]

n interesting poll. Over 90% of Canadians did not know the first name of their Prime Minister's wife...or how many children he had (and he's been PM for 9 years). In contrast, in the USA, the President has become some social celebrity like Prince William and Kate.

Yes, though there may be several reasons for the difference I expect the major one is size. Canada's population (~ 30 milllion?) and economy is about the size of a large US state, say CA or TX, and my guess a poll would often show a similar non-interest in the governor's family in those states (e.g. I have no idea the name of the wife of my state's governor). The US founders were aware that an extended-republic might be problematic (via Montesquieu), hence the state-federal system in the US. I suspect we've been too big on the federal side for decades, leading to not just a US version of William and Kate's celebrity, but a William and Kate with both celebrity and state power.

...It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected

 

[Dembadon]

We claim to want democracy...but also want a 'strong' President.

I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive, unless I'm misinterpreting your use of the word "strong."

I typically view strength (in the context of leadership) as having a backbone; following-through on promises and principles in the face of heavy opposition. Surely this is a desired quality in any leader no matter the system of governance.

 

[Astronuc]

Potentially troubling for Clinton - http://news.yahoo.com/sources-justice-asked-consider-probing-clinton-emails-125056472--election.html#

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new letter by intelligence investigators to the Justice Department says secret government information may have been compromised in Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server, underscoring an inescapable reality for her presidential campaign: Email is forever.

. . . . swirling questions surrounding her decision to run her State Department correspondence through an unsecured system set up at her New York home.

! What??!

A statement from the intelligence inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, and his counterpart at the State Department, Steve Linick, said that McCullough's office found four emails containing classified information in a limited sample of 40 emails.

"This classified information should have never been transmitted via an unclassified personal system," they said.

 

[tom aaron]

Potentially troubling for Clinton - http://news.yahoo.com/sources-justice-asked-consider-probing-clinton-emails-125056472--election.html#

! What??!

There isn't anything that Hillary or Jeb has said or written that will influence more than 1% of voters. They are known entities and their support is completely based on what people already think of them ... And the strength of that in comparison to some 'other guy'. Hillary could have murdered babies and Jeb could be an alien in disguise. Doesn't matter.

The 1% it influences are politicos who have already put on the blinkers and love or hate a politician based on the team uniform.

 

[mheslep]

! What??!

That punctuation indicates real or mock surprise? That a US Sec of State could run a great deal of her message traffic through a personal server and never have that flow contain classified information?

 

[Astronuc]

That a US Sec of State could run a great deal of her message traffic through a personal server and never have that flow contain classified information?

That

 

[russ_watters]

I'm confused too -- real or mock, it implies you hadn't heard of this issue before.

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server to DOJ
http://news.yahoo.com/us-official-fbi-hillary-clinton-emails-home-server-222216318--election.html

Clinton had to this point refused demands from Republican critics to turn over the server to a third party, with attorney David Kendall telling the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that "there is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server."
. . . .
Kendall gave the thumb drives, containing copies of roughly 30,000 emails, to the FBI after the agency determined he could not remain in possession of the classified information contained in some of the emails, according to a U.S. official briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly.

"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "They were not marked as classified."

The inspector general for the intelligence community had told Congress that potentially hundreds of classified emails are among the cache that Clinton provided to the State Department.

 

[jim hardy]

Clinton's attorney said in March that no emails from the main personal address she used while secretary of state still "reside on the server or on back-up systems associated with the server."

so they got erased ? Republicans will have a ball with that one !

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

Maybe that's why they're dusting off Biden and Gore .

i guess it depends on your definition of "Whoever" ? Or maybe "his"...

 

[mheslep]

so they got erased ? ...

See esp "willfully" in the law. As former AG Mukasey wrote in essay today, the key is intent which with staffers and whatnot to throw under the bus will be hard to clarify.

 

[russ_watters]

Clinton relents, gives up possession of private email server to DOJ
http://news.yahoo.com/us-official-fbi-hillary-clinton-emails-home-server-222216318--election.html

Now *I'm* confused/surprised: what could she possibly think she has to gain by releasing it now, in its current condition? If her IT techs did their jobs and irreparably wiped the hard drive, then it won't show anything about anything. So is she just sticking her tongue out at us? And if they didn't do their jobs and some email is recoverable, then there is significant risk to her. Either way, I don't get why she felt the need to turn it over now.

Probably the bigger issue though, is the flash drive held by her lawyers, which was also turned-over.

 

[Bystander]

So is she just sticking her tongue out at us?

the flash drive held by her lawyers

 

[Astronuc]

Now *I'm* confused/surprised: what could she possibly think she has to gain by releasing it now, in its current condition? If her IT techs did their jobs and irreparably wiped the hard drive, then it won't show anything about anything. So is she just sticking her tongue out at us? And if they didn't do their jobs and some email is recoverable, then there is significant risk to her. Either way, I don't get why she felt the need to turn it over now.

Probably the bigger issue though, is the flash drive held by her lawyers, which was also turned-over.

Bewildered comes to mind.

Certainly stinks.

Maybe that's why they're dusting off Biden and Gore .

Troubling indeed.

 

[mheslep]

If her IT techs did their jobs and irreparably wiped the hard drive

This is interesting area of cat and mouse. As most know, simply deleting a computer file in the usual manner cuts only the address of file, not the data itself. Clinton's techs certainly know this and that they would have to overwrite the data to destroy it beyond retrieval without extraordinary forensic means. Also locating the data might be difficult once the address link is cut and so the safe method is to overwrite the entire drive. This is my standard practice before letting go of old personal hard drives. However, it seems to me overwriting the entire drive is a clear declaration of intent to destroy evidence/public property. The yoga classes and wedding planning personals narrative can't apply to it all.

Last, the FBI has extraordinary means. Apparently a sort of ghost magnetic memory is left behind even after overwrite operations and the FBI has means to possibly recreate the erased data. The only fool proof method against such resources is to destroy the drive (ala the IRS investigation). See again destruction of evidence.

 

[russ_watters]

This is interesting area of cat and mouse...

However, it seems to me overwriting the entire drive is a clear declaration of intent to destroy evidence/public property. The yoga classes and wedding planning personals narrative can't apply to it all...

The only fool proof method against such resources is to destroy the drive (ala the IRS investigation). See again destruction of evidence.

Yes, at first I was bewildered as to why she hadn't already melted the server down into a doorstop, but then I came to the same conclusion: she can delete emails she says were personal without (necessarily) fear of that being considered destruction of evidence, but destroying the drive completely would destroy both the ones she was allowed to delete and the ones she had to keep, implying a destruction of evidence type coverup. Unless the flash drive contained all the ones she said she had to keep, then perhaps she could destroy the drive while claiming she preserved the necessary emails on the flash drive.

I also wouldn't necessarily assume her IT experts were doing their jobs, seeing as how IT experts have said it wasn't particularly secure and no one (apparently) advised her of the impropriety of having it in the first place. Although perhaps once the scandal broke, she got better IT experts?

Either way, she's relying heavily on the standard defense all politicians have to wrongdoing: spectacular ignorance. Having many layers of staff usually provides a good buffer, but in this case her primary wrongdoing was getting rid of that very buffer, which will make it hard to maintain the claim of ignorance. Someone close to her would have had to strip the intelligence traffic headers off of the top secret messages that were on her server. That, in itself, is a felony.

But a State Department official told Fox News that the intelligence community inspector general, who raised the most recent concerns about Clinton's emails, made clear that at least one of those messages contained information that only could have come from the intelligence community.

"If so, they would have had to come in with all the appropriate classification markings," the official said.

The official questioned whether someone, then, tampered with that message. "somewhere between the point they came into the building and the time they reached HRC's server, someone would have had to strip the classification markings from that information before it was transmitted to HRC's personal email."...

The official said doing so would "constitute a felony, in and of itself. I can't imagine that a rank-and-file career DOS employee would have done this, so it was most likely done by someone in her inner circle."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/13/official-clinton-inner-circle-may-have-stripped-email-classification-markings/

That is, necessarily, somewhat speculative.

 

[Dembadon]

Last, the FBI has extraordinary means. Apparently a sort of ghost magnetic memory is left behind even after overwrite operations and the FBI has means to possibly recreate the erased data. The only fool proof method against such resources is to destroy the drive (ala the IRS investigation). See again destruction of evidence.

It depends on how careful her IT staff was when sanitizing the drives. There are different methods for sanitizing flash media and magnetic media. In either case, there are three main categories of sanitization:

Clear, Purge, and Destroy are actions that can be taken to sanitize media. The categories of sanitization are defined as follows:

- Clear applies logical techniques to sanitize data in all user-addressable storage locations for protection against simple non-invasive data recovery techniques; typically applied through the standard Read and Write commands to the storage device, such as by rewriting with a new value or using a menu option to reset the device to the factory state (where rewriting is not supported).

- Purge applies physical or logical techniques that render Target Data recovery infeasible using state of the art laboratory techniques.

- Destroy renders Target Data recovery infeasible using state of the art laboratory techniques and results in the subsequent inability to use the media for storage of data.

bolding mine
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-88r1.pdf
(page 17)

I'm not sure what qualifies as "state of the art", but I'm sure the NSA has methods and equipment that surpass traditional recovery tools. Considering the potential for compromised information relating to national security, I can see justifying their (NSA) involvement with data recovery.

If her drive was magnetic, degaussing is becoming more difficult which might allow investigators to capitalize on an inadequate/poor sanitization process.

Destructive techniques for some media types may become more difficult or impossible to apply in the future. Traditional techniques such as degaussing (for magnetic media) become more complicated as magnetic media evolves, because some emerging variations of magnetic recording technologies incorporate media with higher coercivity (magnetic force). As a result, existing degaussers may not have sufficient force to effectively degauss such media.

(page 15 of the same document)

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton reaffirms she didn't send, receive classified emails
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-reaffirms-she-didnt-send-receive-classified-emails-190719970--election.html

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

[mheslep]

It depends on how careful her IT staff was when sanitizing the drives. ...

As I understand the particulars, Clinton has no more authority to sanitize the entire drive than you or I have in going down the National Archives and sanitizing the Nixon tapes.

 

[russ_watters]

Clinton reaffirms she didn't send, receive classified emails

That isn't quite what the article said:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated Saturday that she did not send or receive emails marked classified from her homemade email server... [emphasis added]

And that's apparently true. So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?

 

[Astronuc]

That isn't quite what the article said:

And that's apparently true. So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?

I heard that two emails were classified after she received them, which is a bit odd. I think we have to sift through the parsed or nuanced language until some clarity prevails. I think I heard her say that she didn't send or receive classified emails, but perhaps somewhere she said she didn't receive emails marked classified. I'm inclined to wait for the DOJ to bring clarity to the situation, although the IG of the IC seems to have determined that classified emails were in the set of HRC emails.

Just because it isn't/wasn't marked classified doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't classified. It was her responsibility to know.

 

[russ_watters]

I heard that two emails were classified after she received them, which is a bit odd.

Yes, I heard she said that, but it is my understanding that that claim is now proven false/obsolete and that's why the narrative has been changed:

McCullough (DOS inspector general) said in the past that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings," but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/

That would explain the narrow wording I quoted in my post. She's squeezing herself into a tighter and tighter corner.

I think we have to sift through the parsed or nuanced language until some clarity prevails. I think I heard her say that she didn't send or receive classified emails, but perhaps somewhere she said she didn't receive emails marked classified. I'm inclined to wait for the DOJ to bring clarity to the situation, although the IG of the IC seems to have determined that classified emails were in the set of HRC emails.

Yes, my understanding of the morphing of the narrative is (paraphrase):

"I didn't send any classified emails"
Then:
"I didn't send any emails that were classified at the time I sent them"
Then:
"I didn't send any emails marked as classified [even those that were classified at the time I sent them]"

The first two, if true, would indicate that there was no crime committed. The third is a crime, just not necessarily by her.

Just because it isn't/wasn't marked classified doesn't mean it isn't/wasn't classified. It was her responsibility to know.

Agreed.

 

[Astronuc]

The Hillary Clinton emails: What's known, what's not
http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-emails-whats-known-whats-not-022531217.html

"I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received," Clinton told reporters on July 25.

I think this began with the inquiry into Benghazi and the discovery the HRC had a private/personal email server. It should be understood that the Sec of State would likely have access to classified information, and therefore, official communication should be through a secure server.Obama and the Clintons: Top Dems mingle on Martha's Vineyard
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-clinton-cross-paths-marthas-vineyard-soiree-071920392--election.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton, who also planned to hold campaign fundraisers while on Martha's Vineyard, arrived late in the day from Iowa, where on Saturday she insisted she never sent or received emails marked classified through her homebrew email server. She accused her Republican opponents and GOP lawmakers of partisanship as the email affair continued to overshadow her campaign.

and

Later in the month, the Clintons will vacation in the Hamptons in New York, where Clinton also plans to attend fundraisers for her campaign.

An exclusive gathering of politicians and potential donors. So much for change. It seems like business as usual. Or was the change simply an improved system of collecting campaign/political contributions?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's an article that specifically discusses the change in narrative and what prompted it:

“I never sent classified material on my email, and I never received any that was marked classified,”...

The comments marked a small but noteworthy departure from prior statements Clinton has made about her use of the server. Previously, she said she never sent or received classified emails on that server, period. Saturday, she said she never sent or received emails that were marked as classified. The distinction appears to be an implicit acknowledgment of the inspector general’s recent findings that the content of at least four emails out of a randomly selected batch of 40 were classified.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/iowa-hillary-clinton-stands-firm-email-controversy

Small sample size, but if the pattern holds at 10%, then it is likely that thousands of the emails she sent/received were classified. Given that in the normal course of business for a SecState, much of the information that crosses your desk is classified, that isn't at all surprising to me.

There is another subtlety of the new narrative that msnbc didn't catch and that is that one phrase says "sent" and the other "received". Not sure what she's after with that.

 

[lisab]

There are lots of things about Hillary that I like. She's smart and tough, and much of a more middle-of-the-road centrist than many paint her in the media. Very pragmatic - I like that.

But I tell you what, she's a terrible campaigner.

 

[WWGD]

There are lots of things about Hillary that I like. She's smart and tough, and much of a more middle-of-the-road centrist than many paint her in the media. Very pragmatic - I like that.

But I tell you what, she's a terrible campaigner.

But she has a pretty bad likability problem. Not just that people disagree with her, it is just that she is not , or at least does not appear to be , very likable. She needs to find a way of overcoming that.

 

[lisab]

But she has a pretty bad likability problem. Not just that people disagree with her, it is just that she is not , or at least does not appear to be , very likable. She needs to find a way of overcoming that.

Yeah that's probably part of it. And it's a shame people focus on it, but it's undeniably part of the calculus.

An aside: my mom used to work in a US Embassy in one of the -stans. Hillary came to visit when she was FLOTUS. My mom said she was so different with the cameras off! Personable and approachable, down-to-earth...just a very warm person. That doesn't come across in the media, for sure.

 

[Astronuc]

with the cameras off! Personable and approachable, down-to-earth...just a very warm person.

I had the same observation at a function at which she spoke. She seemed more relaxed and engaged warmly with members of the audience.

 

[jim hardy]

Deja Vu all over again ?

One CIA director John M Deutsch, just before pleading guilty to mishandling classified documents on his unclassified computer , was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day in office
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/john-m-deutch

NEWS
Deutch Was Close to Pleading Guilty
January 25, 2001 | From Times Wire Reports
Former CIA Director John M. Deutch agreed last Friday to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets, but President Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case against him, officials said. Deutch was among 176 people granted some form of clemency by Clinton hours before he left office.

exhaustive report here
fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

Obama and the Clintons: Top Dems mingle on Martha's Vineyard

Fore!

 

[Astronuc]

It will be interesting to see if that happens in January 2017, if not sooner.

I have to wonder what Bill has been discussing with Barack.

 

[Astronuc]

Probe of Clinton's server could find more than just emails
http://news.yahoo.com/probe-clintons-server-could-more-just-emails-071945426--election.html

I would expect that there were attachments, but other files were stored on the server?

 

[Dotini]

In my humble mind, it seems obvious Hillary is being investigated by the DOJ in re storage of classified material on her personal computer server; criminal charges similar to those suffered by David Patraeus are certain to doom her candidacy. Accordingly, a Biden/Warren ticket is envisaged.

 

[russ_watters]

The scandal appears serious to me, but given that she's a Clinton, I wouldn't conclude she's out just yet.

 

[Astronuc]

Judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated policy
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ns-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html

 

[russ_watters]

[This topic may warrant its own thread]

Ordinarily a political activists' blog would not be an acceptable source on PF, but in this case, this is the primary source for the HC email scandal:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/tag/hillary-clinton-email-scandal/

Judicial Watch is a conservative activist organization who's mission statement focuses on judicial activism, but realistically has been mostly focused on government secrecy/openness. They broke the HC email scandal via filing Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits, starting with the Bengazigate scandal. Through that scandal, they discovered Hillary's personal email server and have been attacking the issue since. The link above contains their content from the scandal and some of it I find to be interesting information that hasn't yet been made "news".

For example, there are little tidbits, such as:
-The DOS did not provide her with a secure Blackberry.
-Two of Clinton's aids are included in the scandal. On Friday, Aug 7, Clinton issued a "status report" regarding compliance with an order to turn over emails, which stated that one was being instructed to destroy her emails:

1. Last week, on July 31, 2015, the Court ordered Defendant to take four specific actions and to update the Court on its compliance today. 2. Defendant filed its update a short time ago. 3. Although Defendant, Secretary Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Mills failed to provide nearly all of the information required by the Court’s order, this urgent response is to highlight one startling revelation. 4. By letter dated August 6, 2015, Ms. Mills’ attorney informed Defendant, “Following our production on August 10, 2015, we have instructed [Ms. Mills] to delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/08-07-15-JW-v-State-Response-013631.pdf
The court provided the requested "urgent response" (not wanting to wait until Monday) that day, ordering her not to destroy the emails.

In view of [20] the Government’s status report, the Court hereby directs the Government to request that Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills i) not delete any federal documents, electronic or otherwise, in their possession or control, and ii) provide appropriate assurances to the Government that the above-named individuals will not delete any such documents. The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 12, 2015, including a copy of any assurances provided by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills that they will not delete any federal documents in their possession or control. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 7, 2015.

All this is very technical/legalistic, but informs about the things going on in the background of the scandal. This one in particular, though, seems to me like it could provide a basis for obstruction of justice.

 

[russ_watters]

Condescending jokes didn't work, so now she's trying contrition:

"My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn't the best choice. I should have used two emails -- one personal, one for work -- and I take responsibility for that decision," she said when asked at an Iowa event.

The answer shows much more contrition than she has of late, even acknowledging that she understands why people care about the issue.

"Well, I know people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why. I get it,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-rural-policy-2016/index.html

Anyone buying her sincerity?