But again, what "average politician" has been First Lady and Secretary of State? She's pretty much beyond compare politically. Closest I can think of I guess would be Cheney since he had some profile before becoming VP, but even then it's tough to compare them since he was always such a shadow character and not front and center like she was.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Does holding those positions make it more likely that you're going to do shady things?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Yeah I would think so. As we know power tends to corrupt, and the higher the position you get in government the more power and access you have. If nothing else you're almost certainly dealing with more corrupt individuals if you're someone with real power, like Secretary of State, and not some junior Senator from Idaho. No offense anyone from Idaho.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
But again, what "average politician" has been First Lady and Secretary of State? She's pretty much beyond compare politically. Closest I can think of I guess would be Cheney since he had some profile before becoming VP, but even then it's tough to compare them since he was always such a shadow character and not front and center like she was.
And really, I think if anyone actually cared enough to investigate Cheney, they'd find a plethora of skeletons.
The average politician hasn't had approximately 50,000 hours of coverage dedicated to them over a 20+ year period. Analyzing Hillary relative to anyone else is virtually impossible, save, well, Bill pretty much. I'm guessing if the average politician had been under media scrutiny at Hillary's level, we'd probably view them almost exactly the same as we do Hillary.
"Hillary 2016-- Celebrating over 45 years of no indictments!"
I view her more comparable to someone like John Gotti. She manages to slip through massive scandals, the one that really sticks out for me is Whitewater, but there are many others. From wikipedia:
"On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. This was the first time in American history that a first lady had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. She testified that they never borrowed any money from the bank, and denied having caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf. Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals—including Jim and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell, and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker—were convicted of federal charges. Other than Jim McDougal, none of the convicted agreed to cooperate with the Whitewater investigators, and Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency"
You're missing a key facet of what they are saying. They made no effort to preserve information from her private email address on the server, which would not have been a requirement prior to the 2014 amendment. Her private correspondence on the server we not required to be accounted for, only her government business, which was responded to with her government account. The records on the government server would already be accounted for.
You're also missing a key facet of how email is used. A device may receive information from multiple accounts, and be configured to respond through to the appropriate server from the mobile device. This has been a common practice for people in all walks of life, including high ranking government employees. I know of one that got burned by this because they responded to a privileged conversation, but used the wrong email address to respond from. This put the email in the open and brought the individual under an incredible amount of unnecessary scrutiny. I suspect that Clinton was receiving emails on her personal device from multiple emails, but had also set up an auto-forward on her State Department email so she would have a copy on her private server. This was also a very popular practice prior to the 2014 amendment and something only a governance and policy change at all agencies put a halt to.
Quote:
The paper trail was compromised.
If she was forwarding emails to her personal server, while still responding from her device, the email paper trail is intact. Based on information in her testimony she lived on her Blackberry, so I would contend the government email was whole. Anything sent from her personal account is another story, but she was not required to do anything with emails from her personal account.
Quote:
There is no way to evaluate whether or not records were preserved properly because Hillary's staff (alone) made the determination of what records were private - and they (claim to have) used keyword searches to separate personal-from-professional. This is another layer of denialbility. Hillary destroyed the records she wanted destroyed. That's not good enough.
That is what the FBI would have investigated.
Quote:
You are deferring to the FBI, which is emminently reasonable, but I am not for two reasons.
1) the FRA and violations thereof, we're not under the purview of the FBI investigation. (See a The Hill link I posted previously)
The Hill is incorrect in their understanding of the process. The FBI are responsible for investigating such transgressions. That is their purview. I'm very curious who you think would be responsible for doing such an investigation, or who would have the assets to complete such an investigation?
Quote:
2) investigations a) high-level officials and b) political candidates add additional layers of scrutiny to pressing charge, and rightfully so. Any charges that are levied against a Presidential nominee would be blown out of proportion by the press/public. While this does not pre-empt charges being filed, there is a disinclination to prosecute a relatively minor offense.
The FBI will follow the law and deal with non-compliance in the ways the law is written. Especially with the incredible scrutiny this particular political candidate receives.
Quote:
I think of it as comparable to the NHL needing a greater infraction to punish a superstar over a plug. (If Toews had crosschecked a ref, the league would be less inclined to proclaim it malicious) There are really good reasons for a double standard, but inaction of the league against a superstar is less exculpatory.
This isn't the NHL and national security is not a joke. The FBI takes their charge very seriously and do not cut "superstars" a break. Just the contrary. The FBI wants to make sure their is not the slightest hint of impropriety and investigate matters to their fullest.
Quote:
I also want to address your comments on the time-sensitivity of markings, but I'm struggling to find my supporting evidence. It's an Intelligence official that placed the burden on the handler of the documents - classified is contents, not markings. I intend to amend this post when I have more time.
Documents receive handling labels based on how they stack up against classification standards. Someone doesn't arbitrarily pull a sensitivity label out of their ass and say this document is now classified or top secret. There are events that elevate information to meet particular classifications. Once the information meets a given classification it is assigned a label and it now must comply with the handling standards set by the FRA. That is why a document can be private during its initial dissemination, but days or weeks later receive an elevated label. Each of those labels will have different handling requirements including how they are moved electronically, right up to the cipher used to encrypt the data in transit and at rest.
Again, I hope this clears up any confusion presented in the press. I don't think they have done a very good job explaining this stuff, mostly because it is tedious and boring for the average reader. I hope I've made it as accessible as possible.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
"Hillary 2016-- Celebrating over 45 years of no indictments!"
I view her more comparable to someone like John Gotti. She manages to slip through massive scandals, the one that really sticks out for me is Whitewater, but there are many others. From wikipedia:
"On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. This was the first time in American history that a first lady had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. She testified that they never borrowed any money from the bank, and denied having caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf. Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals—including Jim and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell, and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker—were convicted of federal charges. Other than Jim McDougal, none of the convicted agreed to cooperate with the Whitewater investigators, and Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency"
"Hillary 2016-- Celebrating over 45 years of no indictments!"
I view her more comparable to someone like John Gotti. She manages to slip through massive scandals, the one that really sticks out for me is Whitewater, but there are many others. From wikipedia:
"On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. This was the first time in American history that a first lady had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. She testified that they never borrowed any money from the bank, and denied having caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf. Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals—including Jim and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell, and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker—were convicted of federal charges. Other than Jim McDougal, none of the convicted agreed to cooperate with the Whitewater investigators, and Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency"
David Hale (not that one) pointed the FBI towards the Clintons after he had been indicted in 1993, but made no mention of the loan in question during the original 1989 investigation.
Furthermore, three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them to the criminal conduct of the others involved.
There isn't a person the Republicans have wanted to get more than Hillary Clinton over the last twenty years. I shudder to think of the amount of money they've spent trying to bring her down. And if after all this time and all this money, they still can't do it, they either suck at their jobs or she's not the monster they wish she was.
Oh, and she's better at the game than they are. I bet that's what stings most of all.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Some Trump word salad while Trump supporter O'Reilly tried to get Trump to talk about how he would actually do things. Trump even frustrates his friends who are trying to help him....
With the direct association with Briebart it would be quite something if this election pushed Fox news to center-right.
Some Trump word salad while Trump supporter O'Reilly tried to get Trump to talk about how he would actually do things. Trump even frustrates his friends who are trying to help him....
I'm not a Trump supporter, but isn't that kind of thing frustrating to the people that are? Do they just not care?
How are you going to deport millions of people? Quickly.
Yeah, but how? So fast your head will spin.
Yeah, but how? Quickly.
You are going to be tough on crime? Immediately
What are you going to do? So fast you're head will spin (he actually did use that phrase for both subjects, not an exaggeration)
What about in Chicago? They have problems, what are you going to do? I met a guy there, a tough guy, he said he'd clean it up in a week
How? He's a tough guy. I told the Mayor to hire him
Yeah, but how? He said he'd have it done in a week.
Yeah, but how? He's a tough guy.
How do people fall for this charade? You gotta wonder how the man himself falls for it, if he actually does, or if he just goes off camera and laughs it up at the rubes that do.
__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
We need to find Trump's high school English teacher and ask that person if this is how Trump spoke in high school. If you took out all of the synonyms he uses for the words "great" and "terrible", his vocab would be in the 40 word range. And he'd be nowhere without exclamation points.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Also Trump and Nigel Farage scheduled to appear together tonight in Mississippi. Why exactly is Trump campaigning in Texas and Mississippi and cancelling events in Colorado and Nevada again? GOP should be apoplectic over that.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
You're missing a key facet of what they are saying. They made no effort to preserve information from her private email address on the server, which would not have been a requirement prior to the 2014 amendment. Her private correspondence on the server we not required to be accounted for, only her government business, which was responded to with her government account. The records on the government server would already be accounted for.
There was no government account.
Government business was conducted on a private server, which was neither secure nor archived.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
What Trump does could have a serious effect on his campaign. Perhaps a new, more moderate position might attract some undecided voters. But a retreat from the deportation pledge, or at least what many supporters believed Trump's deportation pledge to be, could disillusion some who have supported and worked for Trump's candidacy. There are a significant number of Trump supporters who were drawn to him because of his stand on immigration.
Like Ann Coulter. The conservative author has written a new book, In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!, and in an appearance on MSNBC Tuesday said she hoped Trump is not, in fact, backing away from his positions on immigration.
Still, Trump's recent statements "sound very consultant to me," Coulter said. "I think this is a mistake." And she added: "This could be the shortest book tour ever if he's really softening his position on immigration."
__________________
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
