The Real Hillary Shady

[MediumTex]

Not only is the answer "yes", but for stuff that wasn't classified "at the time": who else is qualified if not the Secretary of State to know which documents are going to be classified?  Who is this "other" who does the classification?

I didn't think any of the emails were classified at the time they were sent or received.  Many have since been classified, of course.

Actually…

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/po ... unity.html

Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact.

But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now.

That's great news.

The prosecution should have a pretty easy time getting a conviction.  As I recall, when it comes to handling classified material all the state has to show is negligence or perhaps recklessness, but intent is not required.  Much easier case for the state to make.

The grant of immunity to the tech guy is interesting.  Granting immunity to anyone tells me that the Feds plan to get some indictments.

[rickb]

Here's the info about the CIA spy thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/us/po ... .html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02 ... tcmp=hpbt1

EXCLUSIVE: One of the classified email chains discovered on Hillary Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News.

The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President Obama said such unauthorized disclosures are “presumed to cause damage to the national security."

The U.S. government official said the Clinton email exchange, which referred to a New York Times report, was among 29 classified emails recently provided to congressional committees with specific clearances to review them. In that batch were 22 “top secret” exchanges deemed too damaging to national security to release.

And for Democrats out there wondering, "why is this a big deal? Smells like another right-wing hit job!"

Here's the answer:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/m ... ail-118007

Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morell said that he believes some foreign intelligence agencies possess the contents of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses,” Morell said Friday in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

So, tell me how this compares to the President deliberately outing a CIA operative for political purposes?

On a scale of 1-10 (1=I don't care, 10=OMFG), I think Hillary's use of a private email server is about a 2.  The President deliberately outing a CIA operative for political purposes is more like a 10.

Do you think Trump would hesitate to out a CIA agent if he could gain some political advantage by doing so?

How about Hillary?

[Pointedstick]

So, tell me how this compares to the President deliberately outing a CIA operative for political purposes?

On a scale of 1-10 (1=I don't care, 10=OMFG), I think Hillary's use of a private email server is about a 2.  The President deliberately outing a CIA operative for political purposes is more like a 10.

You're mistaken: the president didn't out a CIA operative; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage did. And in doing so, he committed a treasonous offense that he should be rotting in jail for. However, Richard Armitage isn't around anymore and isn't running for president. If he was (he could I guess; he's about Trump's age) I would consider it a total disqualifier and would be sad that he couldn't face any legal penalties because of double jeopardy laws, since the first investigation--no doubt politically tainted--failed to produce an indictment despite his admission that he did it.

Handling this kind of extremely sensitive information properly, fairly, and safely is, like, one of the most basic duties for people in the state department. I have a friend currently working in the state department. If he did anything like what Armitage did, or Hillary is accused of, he'd have been nailed to the wall ages ago. Utterly failing at this kind of thing in a manner that jeopardizes national security and puts people's lives at risk doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in me that any such person's presidential administration would be any less disastrous. I wouldn't vote for a hypothetical Richard Armitage candidate for president either.

Do you think Trump would hesitate to out a CIA agent if he could gain some political advantage by doing so?

No, Trump would not do that.

How about Hillary?

No, Hillary would not do that.

[rickb]

You're mistaken: the president didn't out a CIA operative; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage did.

ROFLOL.  You think he didn't do this at the explicit request of Rove and Bush?

[MediumTex]

You're mistaken: the president didn't out a CIA operative; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage did.

ROFLOL.  You think he didn't do this at the explicit request of Rove and Bush?

Would it be rational from a risk/benefit perspective for a President to do that?

Do you think W. was even smart enough to come up with a scheme like that?

It seems more likely to me that the scheme started with Cheney, judging by Bush's limited pardon of Libby.

[rickb]

You're mistaken: the president didn't out a CIA operative; former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage did.

ROFLOL.  You think he didn't do this at the explicit request of Rove and Bush?

Would it be rational from a risk/benefit perspective for a President to do that?

Do you think W. was even smart enough to come up with a scheme like that?

It seems more likely to me that the scheme started with Cheney, judging by Bush's limited pardon of Libby.

I certainly don't think W. came up with the scheme, and he might not even have been in on it from the beginning (Cheney and Rove were pretty clearly running the show) - but I think it came from the office of the President.

My point is that the conservative hysteria over Hillary's email server is simply the result of Fox News whipping their watchers into a frenzy - as opposed to a principled reaction to the facts.  The facts are that W's White House did FAR worse things that got nary a peep out of the same folks who are now foaming at the mouth about Hillary.

Frankly, I suspect what a lot of the people who simply hate Hillary hate about her is that she's a woman.

[flyingpylon]

Frankly, I suspect what a lot of the people who simply hate Hillary hate about her is that she's a woman.

LOL... seriously?

BTW, what another administration did or did not do has no bearing on what Hillary did.  That's a grade school-level defense.

[Pointedstick]

BTW, what another administration did or did not do has no bearing on what Hillary did.  That's a grade school-level defense.

Yeah. Rickb, think about how petty and tribalistic the point you seem to be making sounds:

"Someone I hate did something in the past that I think is much worse and got away with it, so this person I kind of like should be given a break when she does something in the same ballpark that I don't see as bad."

And you think Trump is destroying the republic?

[Pointedstick]

* Yes, the same people uttered nary a peep when GWB did all the crazy incompetent stuff he did.

And some of us peeped quite loudly all throughout the Bush administration and are none too thrilled about being pegged as Fox News dittoheads the moment we start to find some faults with Hillary Clinton.   Some of us try to step out of the tribal left-right straightjacket from time to time.

[moda0306]

I think it is fair to simultaneously call out Hillary for illegal/unethical/short-sighted/dangerous/whathaveyou activity AND point out that a solid portion of the electorate lacks perspective on truly how bad this is compared to what politicians do in-general.

It's ok to have two seemingly opposing thoughts simultaneously... If only to realize that they're not opposing at all. They're simply both pertinent to making decisions about who we place in government roles and how we hold folks accountable.

Hell, I'll add a third. Why the hell is so much stuff classified?  They seem to want to classify EVERYTHING. This is not good for accountable government. It's far-bigger of a threat than emails on an under-protected server, IMO.

For the record I'm not calling anyone here a ditto-head.  And I think most of us mostly agree on this.

[Greg]

Hell, I'll add a third. Why the hell is so much stuff classified?  They seem to want to classify EVERYTHING. This is not good for accountable government. It's far-bigger of a threat than emails on an under-protected server, IMO.

+1

For the record I'm not calling anyone here a ditto-head.  And I think most of us mostly agree on this.

Ditto.

[rickb]

BTW, what another administration did or did not do has no bearing on what Hillary did.  That's a grade school-level defense.

Yeah. Rickb, think about how petty and tribalistic the point you seem to be making sounds:

"Someone I hate did something in the past that I think is much worse and got away with it, so this person I kind of like should be given a break when she does something in the same ballpark that I don't see as bad."

And you think Trump is destroying the republic?

That's not at all what I said.  I said the level of Hillary's email transgression is about a 2 on a scale of 1-10 where the level of what W's White House did was closer to a 10, but the amount of outrage people are expressing is more or less the inverse of that.

[Pointedstick]

That's not at all what I said.  I said the level of Hillary's email transgression is about a 2 on a scale of 1-10 where the level of what W's White House did was closer to a 10, but the amount of outrage people are expressing is more or less the inverse of that.

People's level of outrage is perfectly proportional to their political biases. Partisan Republicans will try to minimize and ignore the Plame affair, and point to Armitage and Libby ad the fall guys, and partisan Democrats will try to minimize and ignore Hillary's email scandal, passing it off as much ado about nothing. To these partisan Democrats, Hillary's woes are a 2, and to the partisan Republicans, the Plame affair was a 2.

Neither is a very realistic assessment. What committed, ideologically blinded partisans think about the scandals of their own party and those of their opponents tells us very little. Both of these cases involve the felonious mishandling of very sensitive information, with consequences that could have been much worse but for luck. Like the Plame affair, there is currently a criminal probe about Hillary's emails.

Democrats would love for this to just go away but pretending it doesn't exist doesn't do them or Hillary any favors, especially seeing as it's leading them to ignore a scandal-free alternative candidate who attracts much more excitement, better represents today's Democratic party, and is far better positioned to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.

[Libertarian666]

If Hillary wins and then is convicted can she pardon herself?

Yes.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_T ... 3B_Pardons

[Libertarian666]

One question I have about Hillary:  What did she have to gain from setting up that server at her house?  I'm honestly baffled by that, and I haven't kept up on all the theories.  Was she just stupid/incompetent, and wanted to use her own email?  Was she sharing state secrets with foreign enemies?  Hiding Benghazi secrets?

One theory is that she wanted to be able to take bribescontributions for the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments without the FOIA being effective.

But I think it was more her general rule of concealing everything she does to the maximum extent possible.

[MediumTex]

One general point I would like to make is about this idea that this forum is really just a Fox News echo chamber that reflexively criticizes Democrats and reflexively praises Republicans.

While there may be some here who do that, I certainly don't.  When I think about Obama and W. I have similar cringes.  They both strike me as puppets of the interests that put them into power, and those interests are only vaguely related to the American people.

Obama has perhaps failed more spectacularly than W. because Obama was far more populist in his campaign and more explicit in his promises to voters when it came to "Hope and Change", but if you go back and look at the 2000 debates and the way Bush smugly dismissed Gore and his big-spending nation-building ways, it's hard not to laugh at how Bush's criticisms of Gore were essentially a road map to precisely what Bush was going to do once elected.

Obama and W. both strike me as exceptionally phony and cynical.  As rickb might point out, though, Obama's Supreme Court picks are on the right side of the issue when it comes to getting a handle on the influence of big money on politics, but I'm not sure how to balance that against Obama's utter ineptness when it came to everything else about his administration.

[Reub]

One general point I would like to make is about this idea that this forum is really just a Fox News echo chamber that reflexively criticizes Democrats and reflexively praises Republicans.

While there may be some here who do that, I certainly don't.  When I think about Obama and W. I have similar cringes.  They both strike me as puppets of the interests that put them into power, and those interests are only vaguely related to the American people.

Obama has perhaps failed more spectacularly than W. because Obama was far more populist in his campaign and more explicit in his promises to voters when it came to "Hope and Change", but if you go back and look at the 2000 debates and the way Bush smugly dismissed Gore and his big-spending nation-building ways, it's hard not to laugh at how Bush's criticisms of Gore were essentially a road map to precisely what Bush was going to do once elected.

Obama and W. both strike me as exceptionally phony and cynical.  As rickb might point out, though, Obama's Supreme Court picks are on the right side of the issue when it comes to getting a handle on the influence of big money on politics, but I'm not sure how to balance that against Obama's utter ineptness when it came to everything else about his administration.

I agree, for the most part I haven't seen many Fox News Republicans on this forum.  It appears that the majority of posters are relatively anti establishment.  And I like that atmosphere, even if it means I have to hear a lot about that one weird dude running for president. 

We're out here alright.  Actually we're under every rock and are slowly moving in to surround you and do you great harm. Be very,  very afraid!

[Mountaineer]

One general point I would like to make is about this idea that this forum is really just a Fox News echo chamber that reflexively criticizes Democrats and reflexively praises Republicans.

While there may be some here who do that, I certainly don't.  When I think about Obama and W. I have similar cringes.  They both strike me as puppets of the interests that put them into power, and those interests are only vaguely related to the American people.

Obama has perhaps failed more spectacularly than W. because Obama was far more populist in his campaign and more explicit in his promises to voters when it came to "Hope and Change", but if you go back and look at the 2000 debates and the way Bush smugly dismissed Gore and his big-spending nation-building ways, it's hard not to laugh at how Bush's criticisms of Gore were essentially a road map to precisely what Bush was going to do once elected.

Obama and W. both strike me as exceptionally phony and cynical.  As rickb might point out, though, Obama's Supreme Court picks are on the right side of the issue when it comes to getting a handle on the influence of big money on politics, but I'm not sure how to balance that against Obama's utter ineptness when it came to everything else about his administration.

I agree, for the most part I haven't seen many Fox News Republicans on this forum.  It appears that the majority of posters are relatively anti establishment.  And I like that atmosphere, even if it means I have to hear a lot about that one weird dude running for president. 

When I observe Obama, Hillary and W. Bush, two items come to mind on how to evaluate them: character and competence based on decisions they made/make and the way they went about making that decision.

I think W. Bush made a poor decision to go into Iraq  but it was based on bad intelligence from the US agencies, Brittish agencies, German agencies, and French agencies if I remember correctly ... perhaps others.  Somehow, as we have speculated in this forum, all those various intelligence agencies were duped into believing Sadam had WMDs.  I think W. Bush's character is an order of magnitude better than that of Hillary or Obama, he seems to truly care about people.  Perhaps his true character stinks, but that is not the impression I get from watching a multitude of TV news stories from a variety of reporters on a variety of networks and internet sources.

I think Hillary also has made poor decisions (e.g. Benghazi, an insecure email server that probably has put many individuals and possibly our country at significant future risk) and has had few, if any, significant accomplishments in her Senate and Secretary of State roles.  As far as character, I do not think she has an honest bone in her body almost regardless of the issue one examines.  And, she just is not likable.

I also think Obama has made some poor decisions (e.g. Libya, continuation of the mess in the Middle East, obamacare, overuse of executive powers).  However, there is something about him and his character that literally makes me sick at my stomach; when I see him on TV, I turn the channel immediately.  I have rarely had such a negative visceral reaction to another human being's character and mannerisms.  I am pretty sure it is not race related as I have many Black, Indian, and Asian friends. 

Then I reflect on the Presidential candidates other than Hillary.  All I can say is "yuck", mostly from the my views of their character since they have not yet had major opportunities to make poor decisions that have or will have significant negative consequences for our country.

All that said, this election seems to have by far the worst selection of candidates that I can remember in my rather long history of voting.  I have not yet decided which of the two evaluation characteristics will be more important for our country - good decision making or good character - both can have a really large impact on us.  I'm leaning toward choosing the candidate who has the best record of good decision making - that is evaluating their results and giving more weight to that vs. whether or not they are slime balls.  My concern with character is if they have poor character, you can't believe anything they promise they will do or not do (not really unique to this election).  Unfortunately, I'm not sure who that candidate is.  Hillary - enough said as to her incompetence and character.  Sanders has not done much I consider positive but seems like a nice guy, Rubio has accomplished little, Cruz perhaps a bit more on accomplishment and seems smart but condescending, Kasich has done pretty well but is a long shot, Trump is a mixed bag on performance, an "ungentlemanly" guy that his family seems to like. 

It's nice to think about  trains that will all run on time (efficiency) but if they end up at the wrong destination (effectiveness) the country will have an even bleaker future than at present.  This is likely the most important Presidential election in my lifetime - somehow, I feel we are at the tipping point.  So, what do you all think is the best way to evaluate these candidates - what are the key prediction metrics you use to evaluate potential future performance?  Competence, character, gut feel, something else?    As an aside, the discussions on this forum about the candidates seem far superior to anything the talking heads and news reporters are offering.  I appreciate the discussions.

I was not sure whether to post in this thread or the Trump thread.  Moderators, feel free to put where ever you think is best.

... M

[moda0306]

I think it is probably a huge area of disagreement here. Bush didn't get duped by agencies. We got duped by an administration that had a conclusion it needed to reach and built the evidence from there. Not the other way around.

Though I will reserve for the possibility that bush himself was being somewhat manipulated by those around him. I don't give Cheney and crew a pass.

[Pointedstick]

Bush was manipulated and manipulable. But Cheney and Rumsfeld and others had long desired to invade Iraq, going back to the early 90s. They set up their own intelligence gathering process that bypassed the agencies and passed them the raw data. And of course, you can see whatever you want in the raw data. So they saw an impending thread of WMD attack, so they successfully made the case for invasion--which of course revealed that there was no such danger in the first place.

At that point, it became obvious that the supposed WMD threat was just a convenient excuse, and that these people just wanted a reason--any reason--to invade Iraq, because their true reason was that Saddam had defied us and made us look like pussies (in their eyes) and we need to kick his ass to prove to the rest of the middle east that we were serious and they'd better not get uppity or we might kick their asses too. It was actually a decently cogent geopolitical theory.

It just happened to be wrong, because once we put it into practice, the result was not greater order and stability in the region, but rather chaos and the rise of even worse radical groups than the ones that were there before. You can argue that Obama messed it up by withdrawing too soon, and there's some truth to this, but any plan that depends on 100% perfect execution is a flawed plan. Nothing ever goes exactly right. If that's the only way to achieve success, it's a bad plan and it will fail.

[jafs]

Bush was manipulated and manipulable. But Cheney and Rumsfeld and others had long desired to invade Iraq, going back to the early 90s. They set up their own intelligence gathering process that bypassed the agencies and passed them the raw data. And of course, you can see whatever you want in the raw data. So they saw an impending thread of WMD attack, so they successfully made the case for invasion--which of course revealed that there was no such danger in the first place.

At that point, it became obvious that the supposed WMD threat was just a convenient excuse, and that these people just wanted a reason--any reason--to invade Iraq, because their true reason was that Saddam had defied us and made us look like pussies (in their eyes) and we need to kick his ass to prove to the rest of the middle east that we were serious and they'd better not get uppity or we might kick their asses too. It was actually a decently cogent geopolitical theory.

It just happened to be wrong, because once we put it into practice, the result was not greater order and stability in the region, but rather chaos and the rise of even worse radical groups than the ones that were there before. You can argue that Obama messed it up by withdrawing too soon, and there's some truth to this, but any plan that depends on 100% perfect execution is a flawed plan. Nothing ever goes exactly right. If that's the only way to achieve success, it's a bad plan and it will fail.

Amen.

Also, anybody who thought about it knew that this would destabilize the region, and people warned Bush et. al. about that at the time.

[Pointedstick]

I can no longer find the Project for a New American Century document online

Here ya go: http://pnac.info/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Mountaineer]

Interesting that the focus on the posts since my last one have been on how bad W. Bush was in the Iraq mess instead of on the current "yuck" candidates - you guys are sounding like CNN.  I too never thought we should have invaded Iraq.  However, that was then and this was now.  Can't do much about what Bush should have known or done ... or his advisors. 

So, any input on the character vs. competence (or whatever other metric one thinks is important to consider) as we go forward to this next Presidential election?  I really don't think it will be Bush's fault for whomever we elect this time around.  I'm trying to look out of the windshield instead of the rear view mirror this time. 

... M

[Xan]

Good points, Tenn.  Just picking up a bit of a tangent on one of them: why is it that Senators disliking Cruz is considered to be a bad thing?  Particularly in this era of anti-establishment sentiment?  That should be a badge of honor!

[Pointedstick]

All we have to go on is perceived character, and specifically, how these people make us feel. It's a total myth that we care about policy--even educated people like most of us. We really don't care at all. We support the person who gives us a personal warm fuzzy feeling or a fire in our bellies. Once you feel that, it's hard to let go of it or satisfactorily articulate just why you like that person. The same is true in reverse. I just don't like Hillary Clinton and I can't really tell you why. And if you don't feel anything for anyone, then you'll ignore them all, irrespective of whose policies might potentially help you if they could be faithfully rendered into law (and usually they can't anyway).