I think Clinton will actually be a pretty good President. That said, she is an awful candidate. Rubio or even Romney would probably run all over her.
As for the lying, we all know that she did it. We all know she is a careerist. We all know that she has made some awful decisions, and then pretended to have never made them. I hate it when people act like this is character defamation.
She has always been someone who plays fast and loose games with the truth.
But the perjury argument that Clinton sent emails marked classified and willfully lied about it hasn't changed since the disclosure of the 10k of emails. So why wasn't the perjury investigation started when the evidence first came up? It was known prior to the conclusion of the COmeny investigation that some were marked as classified prior to sending.
This is clearly an attempt to keep the item in the news as long as possible with no real interest in the pursuit of truth.
I don't know if it was actually proven prior to the FBI releasing their report whether or not the emails were actually marked as classified or not.
I find the Q&A on this pretty intriguing, but the answer on what they didn't investigate her for perjury starts at roughly 1:20, but I would encourage you to watch the whole thing.
It's so strange. I'm finding I'm agreeing to so much you're posting. What is going on!?
I'm totally having the same problem. Pre-conceptions being challenged. Do not like.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
I find the Q&A on this pretty intriguing, but the answer on what they didn't investigate her for perjury starts at roughly 1:20, but I would encourage you to watch the whole thing.
The problem here is that you have a bunch of guys asking questions about the technical issues they know nothing about, and thinking they are cornering a guy who has been forced to go through all the technical issues of the system in question to make the prosecution decision. This video, of Buck grilling Comey shows what I mean.
There are two things to consider here. The installation of the email server, and then the reception of the information on said server.
The installation and use of a private server for government business should be a major crime. Unfortunately, it is not. That precedence was set a long time ago and until the law is changed you cannot nail someone for the use of this system. You have to nail them on the actual steps they take to secure the system, and then how they use the system to store and access information, but not for the existence of the server. Now this is where things get difficult for Mr. Comey, because it is the government’s dissemination rules that determine whether you have committed a crime through the reception and dissemination of information.
According to the FBI’s own policies, dissemination of information is the responsibility of the information owner, and the owner of the system from which it was disseminated. Someone receiving information improperly disseminated cannot be held responsible for receiving the electronic transmission of that data as they must receive it to determine the value of the data. What they do with it after the fact is the issue where criminal charges can, and do, take place. If a party receives information they know they should not be in possession of, they are to immediately delete the files and report the event to proper authorities, usually the originating agency which sent the information. This is classified as a “no-harm-no-foul” dissemination event. The party sending the information is actually the party that has to answer for the issue of transmission of sensitive data, not that party that receives it. To be clear, if you receive something you are not guilty of a crime unless you do something other than delete and report.
Now, once the data is received what happens next is crucial. If the receiver retains the message, they are then sitting on improperly disseminated data, and can be charged for possession of sensitive or confidential/secret data. Depending on the severity of the information this can be a very minor charge to a significant one. Where individuals get into real trouble is when they use that information or forward it. At that point you have become the party disseminating the information and the one considered in control of the communication. It is the act of transmitting data that is the problem.
To really dumb this issue down, it would be like you catching grief from your wife for getting porn spam to your email. You had no control over who sent you what, your email service was just set up to receive it. If you receive it and immediately delete it, your wife doesn’t give a rip. But if you receive that email, then use the links, or forward it to your friends, well then your wife has every reason to be miffed. Simplistic, but this is the way dissemination works. If someone sends you classified data, and you receive it (open it), then you self-report to the appropriate authorities, you have no fears of facing any prosecution.
Comey recognizes this and it is why he answers questions the way he does. Some of these questions are not fair because the individual asking him does not understand dissemination rules. This is the basis for the whole email fiasco. Clinton is guilty of not properly securing her server. After that it is only what she did after receiving emails with sensitive information. I suspect these are the 30,000 emails that were deleted, which is why the FBI is saying there are no actions they see as worthy of charges.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Word is the Hillary campaign and related SuperPACs are going to stop advertising in Colorado and Virginia so that they can focus on "other states". By which I assume they mean red states that could be in play. This is Trump's major problem going forward, that she can go on offense with a full court press, and that he's going to have to play way too much defense for a guy who needs to flip 90+ votes in the electoral college.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
President is now one of those positions where the best you can hope for is someone who won't screw things up too badly.
I don't agree. I think when you compare the Obama administration and the Bush administration, it's pretty obvious that the president still matters. In fact based on that comparison you could argue that the president matters more than ever.
As for Hillary being "a terrible candidate", I also don't agree with that.
Her strengths are experience, smarts and skill at the game of politics. Both her supporters and her enemies agree that she can work the system. If half the stuff she is accused of is true, we can also credit her for being excellent at avoiding scandal.
In the current hyperpartisan politics of the current United States, I would argue that those are the most essential skills for a president, if she wants to stay in power and get stuff done.
Her likeability, appearance, oratory or that stuff do not matter. It does not matter if she's "divisive" or not, because everyone knows they can't hate a president more than 100%, which is how much they'd hate any Democratic president.
Hillary Clinton might not be a likeable politician. But she can navigate a s***storm, and that's what the presidency is like these days.
If you consider the symbolics, what would it say if the US chose a terribly unqualified male over an inarguably qualified female?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Word is the Hillary campaign and related SuperPACs are going to stop advertising in Colorado and Virginia so that they can focus on "other states". By which I assume they mean red states that could be in play. This is Trump's major problem going forward, that she can go on offense with a full court press, and that he's going to have to play way too much defense for a guy who needs to flip 90+ votes in the electoral college.
Ah, I bet you're right about that. I had assumed it was to put more emphasis on Trump's must-win states like Pennsylvania and Florida, but investing in Georgia and Arizona might be even more effective.
It's kind of amazing Colorado and Virginia are presumptive blue states these days. Looking at fivethirtyeight it seems Georgia might even be in play for the democrats. Unreal.
I have not seen a party collapse this far and this quickly since 1993, and that was its own unique situation.
We are in uncharted waters. If these trends continue, Trump may actually have destroyed the GOP, which will leave a big void on one whole part of the political spectrum.
I have not seen a party collapse this far and this quickly since 1993, and that was its own unique situation.
We are in uncharted waters. If these trends continue, Trump may actually have destroyed the GOP, which will leave a big void on one whole part of the political spectrum.
I think this is a god thing for the GOP, they need an utter beat down to recognize that pandering to gun nuts and bigots and jebus worshiping wackos is a dead end, we may end up with a saner centerist GOP a cycle or two down the road.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I have not seen a party collapse this far and this quickly since 1993, and that was its own unique situation.
We are in uncharted waters. If these trends continue, Trump may actually have destroyed the GOP, which will leave a big void on one whole part of the political spectrum.
Which part would that be? The difference in the two parties are almost imperceptible as far as actual policy implementation goes.
I have not seen a party collapse this far and this quickly since 1993, and that was its own unique situation.
We are in uncharted waters. If these trends continue, Trump may actually have destroyed the GOP, which will leave a big void on one whole part of the political spectrum.
Is it the party or just the presidential race? If they lose the house and senate then it would an epic defeat. If they hold one or both then they are still in the game
Is it the party or just the presidential race? If they lose the house and senate then it would an epic defeat. If they hold one or both then they are still in the game
Holding on to what they have is irrelevant. The reality is they are a dying party. Their support is from old angry white men, and they are dying quicker than they can make them. As long as they maintain the course they are on, and there is no indication they are motivated to change tactics, they will run out of support in the next decade and become a regional party, representing the last major bastions of racism and bigotry, the bible belt and fly over states.
I think a lot depends on what happens to the Bernie Bros side of the Democratic Party. There's a lot of room in the middle for the Bush/Romney conservatives inside the Hillary Democrats. All it would take is another horrific candatae and a Clinton primary challenge to get both sides looking at shoring up the middle.
The interesting thing is with the state of the house a three party split preventing someone from getting to 270 might be the best chance the Cruz wing has of regaining power.
So holy ####, Trump actually coped to lying and being wrong (RE: Iran plane loaded with cash). Progress I guess (about those exclamation points though...)
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
