Hillary Clinton Running for President

  • News
  • Thread starter StevieTNZ
  • Start date
  • #176
mheslep
Gold Member
360
728
Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html [Broken]

Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.
A more accurate summary of the article would be that, according to Ken Dilanian of AP, Leslie McAdoo, a lawyer who frequently handles security-clearance cases, indicates there is yet no clear proof of criminal wrong doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #177
gravenewworld
1,127
26
I do not understand the appeal of Hillary at all. She is the biggest phony of all time and won't hesitate to sell herself out at all if it is what the audience wants to hear or if it will get her votes (fake southern accents anyone?). How would she sell out the country then if she were in charge if she has no problem faking her way around?

I'm not even a conservative hack, but do not like Hillary. I've voted Dem my whole life so far, but Hillary is toxic.


The presidency and government should also not be controlled by 2 powerful families.
 
  • #178
Hepth
Gold Member
460
39
If history teaches us anything, its that this will all blow over. People don't discuss it much now, but something similar but much much worse happened during the Bush presidency : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Its quite surprising that 88 administration officials had RNC accounts, used them for business (some), the emails were deleted allegedly with the RNC knowing they needed to keep them, and no one was really charged with anything. Not trying to derail, just keeping things in perspective.
 
  • Like
Likes lisab
  • #179
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,869
4,892
"Hoisted on your own petard". Occupational hazard in politics?
 
  • #180
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
Clinton says she didn't 'stop and think' about email setup - Er, What!?
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-she-didnt-stop-think-email-setup-070132231--election.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,869
4,892
Well the guy who made the tabloids by claiming to have hacked her "sent" box and offering to sell 30,000 emails for a half million bucks
now claims to have turned them over to FBI.
The person who hacked into Hillary Clinton‘s email server has pulled the emails off the block and turned them over to the FBI, RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

“After speaking with my lawyers” the hacker told Radar exclusively, “I was advised I could not legally sell these, and to get rid of them and turn in everything I had to FBI.”
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-email-server-wont-sell-turns-over-fbi/

I'll watch for more credible reports..
 
  • #182
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
Hmmmm - hacking (unauthorized access) someone else's computer is a crime. Of course, one cannot 'legally' sell stolen property.
 
  • #183
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
29,632
15,136
I'm not so sure. He can certainly get in trouble for the hacking. But can he get in trouble for the selling? He's not selling anything the Clintons own - he's selling copies, and furthermore, he's selling copies of deleted - i.e. abandoned - material. The information is not protected by copyright because works of the US Government are public domain. (Clinton Foundation emails would be another matter). There certainly would be a crime if classified information were to be disclosed, but the hacker has a great defense - no less an authority than the former Secretary of State has said there's nothing classified here.
 
  • #184
mheslep
Gold Member
360
728
but something similar
How so? I see no mention in the link of classified information passed over private email accounts in the Bush administration, and there is supposed to be a wall between government business email and private email, not an abolition of private email.

Its quite surprising that 88 administration officials had RNC account ...
It may be true that all government officials have private accounts about which nobody should be surprised. Indeed, its against the law for any to conduct private political operations with government resources (Hatch Act). President Obama's political agenda was handled by the group Organizing for Action, an organization supposedly fire-walled off from the White House to satisfy the law.

What would be surprising is if any of them had never used their government account for email traffic, which was the case for Clinton.
 
Last edited:
  • #185
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
Well - HIllary Clinton was a frontrunner in the beginning. Now Bernie Sanders has moved into the lead in New Hampshire polls, and may be statistically even in the nation.

Now Harvard professor and academic Lawrence (Larry) Lessig
http://news.yahoo.com/harvard-professor-larry-lessig-says-hes-running-president-165508008.html

Apparently he is calling for reform in a number of areas, particularly campaign financing. Apparently he is an advocate of a Second Constitutional Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

Lessig is the 6th democratic nominee candidate.
 
Last edited:
  • #186
mheslep
Gold Member
360
728
nominee candidate
 
  • #187
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
  • #188
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
Clinton's Support Drops by a Third as Trump, Carson Surge in GOP Race
http://news.yahoo.com/clintons-support-drops-third-trump-carson-surge-gop-110000800.html

Damaged by increased doubt about her honesty and empathy, Hillary Clinton has lost a third of her support for the Democratic presidential nomination in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, while non-politicians Donald Trump and Ben Carson have surged on the GOP side, commanding more than half the vote between them in a crowded field.

The results are remarkable, particularly in the Republican contest: Even as Trump’s lead for his party’s nomination has grown, six in 10 Americans see him as unqualified to serve as president and as many say he lacks the personality and temperament to succeed in the job. His rating for empathy is far worse than Clinton’s; for honesty and trustworthiness, slightly worse.
In the Democratic contest, Clinton's drop is dramatic, yet not enough to threaten her clear lead. She's supported by 42 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, down from 63 percent in July, while Sanders has gained 10 points, to 24 percent, and Joe Biden's up by 9 points, to 21 percent. If Biden doesn't run, most of his support moves to Clinton, boosting her to 56 percent – exactly double Sanders' support in this case.
It'll make for an interesting election next year.
 
  • #190
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,419
1,504
  • #191
cellurl
19
7
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Donald Trump will get this country back on track. New deals with China, less political correctness, get blacks and whites talking, get a handle on immigration, perhaps pay down the $100k debt you and I have given our children. Even my 18 year old liberal son likes "the Donald" who can be human as well.
 
  • #192
russ_watters
Mentor
22,065
9,173
Not sure if others have been following the Hillary email scandal, but it didn't end. Rather, the phase it has been in since the summer is periodic releases of the emails after scrubbing of classified information (and therefore cataloging the number that were classified at the time, should have been and now should be). A smoking gun appears to have been in one of the emails:
On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.

The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn't received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were "working on it."

"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/index.html
So it sure sounds like Hillary is explicitly instructing her subordinate to remove the security headers and send the message non-secure, which would be a felony for both Hillary and her subordinate. Now, there's still a little wiggle room. Lemme back up and summarize the narrative from Hillary's camp:

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:

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

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.
[separate post]
So now, the question is: why weren't the classified emails she sent/received marked classified and who removed the markings?
[separate post]
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.
[emphasis added]
So it would appear that she's been morphing the message, backpedaling with statements that weren't quite lies as information gets released that pushes her further and further into a corner. She may have had exactly what we've found out in mind when shaping the narrative and both of those bolded questions have now been answered:
-Jake Sullivan
-Because she found the secure way inconvenient.

And for the last bit: she may have known exactly what she was referring to when she said "received": she only received the illegal email. If it included talking points for a speech, it is reasonable to assume she didn't re-send it. And she's still trying to split that and other hairs:
CNN said:
A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."

"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."

A spokesperson for Grassley's office says it is working under the assumption the email was classified, since Clinton's aides would have had other ways to send the document to her if it wasn't, such as through email.
Sure -- so at this point, we apparently don't have the email itself. We don't know for sure that the crime was committed, just that Hillary ordered her subordinate to commit it. And yes, it is possible that the document wasn't classified but was sent over a secure system, but that doesn't actually help her much: regardless of the content of the message, she's defeating the secure system, violating security procedures.

Gee, [former] Madame Secretary of State, I'm sorry you find the maintaining of the national security of the United States to be a personal inconvenience, but perhaps you shouldn't have taken a job where national security was in the job description if you don't consider it as important as your personal convenience?
 
  • #193
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,869
4,892
" ... we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

- Jeremy Bash, Pentagon chief of staff

try a search on that phrase
and
you'll have to draw your own conclusions
because so many reports are, well,
seemingly at odds.
 
  • #194
russ_watters
Mentor
22,065
9,173
try a search on that phrase
and
you'll have to draw your own conclusions
because so many reports are, well,
seemingly at odds.
I saw that as well, but haven't tried to read up on it yet. I would say the Benghazi thing itself is over (though I'm sure it will come up again during the election). The idea that there were forces that could have helped and weren't employed is just more of the same bungling of the incident we already know: another piece of wood for the fire. But as far as I can tell, none of the bad job performance during that incident was criminal, and this is.
 
  • Like
Likes jim hardy
  • #195
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
Citing anonymous sources, FOX news is reporting an expanded FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reportedly expanded its investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email use during her time as Secretary of State. The investigation will now look into whether a potential "intersection" of State Department business and work with her Clinton Foundation may have violated public corruption laws.

Fox News says that three unidentified intelligence sources had stated the new investigation would occur in addition to the probe into classified material found in the Democratic presidential candidate's personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," said one source.

Des Moines Register chief political reporter Jennifer Jacobs reported Clinton said the claims of a new investigation by the FBI were "absolutely not true." Clinton claimed she had heard nothing from the FBI in regards to a new probe. "No, there's nothing like that that is happening," Clinton told the Register.
 
  • #196
Hornbein
1,125
829
Could the Clinton's be the most-investigated couple in history? That would be my guess.

If they investigated me like that they would find all kinds of stuff. But I ain't tellin'!
 
  • #197
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
Some 150 FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton have signed non-disclosure agreements. The investigation has expanded to include potentially improper State Department contracts awarded to Clinton Foundation donors.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.
 
  • #198
WWGD
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,292
8,192
@mheslep: I wonder what you think about the current Republican candidates' repeated false claim that Planned Parentood is harvesting and selling body parts

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/grand-jury-indicts-leader-behind-planned-parenthood-videos.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Fiorina, others, keep making these undefensible claims, whether one thinks abortion should be legal or not.

Let's be honest about this: if you dig hard-enough you can find dirt on anyone, left or right; there is no serious claim that either holds the moral high ground.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Silicon Waffle
  • #199
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
From the NY Post (a Rupert Murdoch tabloid paper) - ‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying
http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

According to the article, the Dept of State "never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place"
“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, . . . .

The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov e-mail address like previous secretaries.

Howard Krongard was Inspector General (2005 - 2008) at DoS. On the other hand, from his Wikipedia page - "After being accused of averting probes into contracting fraud in Iraq and a possible conflict of interest regarding investigations into Blackwater Worldwide, Krongard left his post on January 15, 2008, and was not eligible for retirement."

Does the US need a third/alternative party, or what?!
 
  • #200
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
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?
That isn't necessarily the case. It is possible that the emails were not marked, but the subject matter fell under one of the categories deemed sensitive.

Meanwhile - State IG: Classified email found from Powell, Rice tenures
http://news.yahoo.com/state-ig-classified-email-found-powell-rice-tenures-183124710--election.html [Broken]
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the immediate staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also received classified national security information on their personal email accounts, according to a memo written by the State Department watchdog that was released Thursday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #201
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
21,005
5,062
Hillary Clinton’s real Wall Street problem: She could seriously use the money
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hill...-could-seriously-use-the-money-141913634.html
When CNN anchor Anderson Cooper asked Clinton recently why she accepted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for giving a grand total of three speeches, she stammered and finally said, “That’s what they offered,” as if she would have taken 25 bucks and a free sandwich, . . .

I don't care for Sanders's bashing of Wall Street or banks, but Clinton seems to have taken a lot of money from Wall Street, and thus she wouldn't seem objective about any regulation.
The whole subject puts Clinton on the defensive, since she’s taken millions in Wall Street donations in her career as Wall Street’s home-state senator and now presidential candidate.

Viewer's Guide: Clinton, Sanders Clash Over Economic Divide
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/viewers-guide-clinton-sanders-break-debate-36706480


New thread started - Clinton vs Sanders
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/clinton-vs-sanders.856631/
 
Last edited:

Suggested for: Hillary Clinton Running for President

  • Last Post
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
350
Views
22K
Replies
7
Views
871
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
524
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
611
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
336
Replies
12
Views
303
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
84
Top