HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

[F.U.]

Of course, ^ that won't stop some from claiming that the emails she deleted were actually related to governmental business, even though there's apparently no evidence to support such an allegation.

Of coarse there is no evidence, it was deleted. Once it was gone no one will know if it was important government documents of a fucking betty Crocker cookie recipe. That's the problem. If she had left them she could open them now and say see, flour, sugar, eggs, chocolate chips. There would be no question about it. As soon as the delete button was hit it was bound to throw up a red flag and people have the right to question it and her.

[HairOfTheDog]

As I said and you just confirmed F.U., there's no apparent evidence to support allegations that Clinton deleted anything but personal emails from her server.

There are only accusations and suspicions by people who don't like/trust her or have an agenda. And, no one asserted that you and they don't have a right to envision red flags and to question Hillary Clinton or anybody else; of course you do.

As for your recipe example, it's not applicable to the situation as it clearly wouldn't qualify as "federal business" that should be recorded, “Under policies issue both by the National Archives and Records Administration and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

[Duchess]

Of coarse there is no evidence, it was deleted.

No matter that she had every right to delete them. You think she should have refrained from doing so in order for people to read her personal mail and decide for themselves (and every other suspicious person) that it was just that, personal?

[HairOfTheDog]

Imagine if every elected public official stored all their personal emails on their work servers forevermore. I imagine the server speed would be "slow crawl" and the IT team and system users would be less than thrilled.

[sally]

Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate for the presidency, from either party, in terms of experience. Right now, to me, her platform is also the most palatable.

I agree and like Duchess said I wish she would have been advised against apologizing.

[Carsman]

Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate for the presidency, from either party, in terms of experience. Right now, to me, her platform is also the most palatable.

I agree and like Duchess said I wish she would have been advised against apologizing.

Maybe she apologized because in her heart, she knew she did wrong.
(oh wait, does she have a heart? yeah, I know)

[Duchess]

Maybe she apologized because in her heart, she knew she did wrong.

What did she do wrong? Spell it out & back it up.

[F.U.]

Of coarse there is no evidence, it was deleted.

No matter that she had every right to delete them. You think she should have refrained from doing so in order for people to read her personal mail and decide for themselves (and every other suspicious person) that it was just that, personal?

Yes, that is as soon as she started using her personal email for business she should have. This entire mess could have ben avoided if she was smart enough to keep work at work and home at home. That's where the problem is.

[F.U.]

As I said and you just confirmed F.U., there's no apparent evidence to support allegations that Clinton deleted anything but personal emails from her server.

There are only accusations and suspicions by people who don't like/trust her or have an agenda. And, no one asserted that you and they don't have a right to envision red flags and to question Hillary Clinton or anybody else; of course you do.

As for your recipe example, it's not applicable to the situation as it clearly wouldn't qualify as "federal business" that should be recorded, “Under policies issue both by the National Archives and Records Administration and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

How can there be any proof weather or not it was important if the dumb ass deleted the proof? Come on, you have to understand that.
Just because she said it was so you believe her? Really? I would hope that you wouldn't even trust your auto mechanic on his word/without proof. OK, If you have your car in the shop and are told there is a extensive list of parts that need replaced. do you just say OK, do it and never look back? I know I don't. I want the parts that are replaced after they are removed. Just like mechanic's, politicians are shady. Never and I mean NEVER trust them on their word.

[pyropappy]

What did she do wrong? Spell it out & back it up.

Again with the strawman. This has nothing to do with deleting "personal" emails; it has every thing to do with her violating federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S. Code Sec. 1924

...With respect to each classified document, the agency originating the document shall, by marking or other means, indicate which portions are classified...

Presidential Order 13526

BTW, this E.O was issued by the Great BO

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

A special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program — has endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

On Monday, the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.

Article

They don't get to argue on classification; the law clearly states the originating agency makes the determination.

Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;

Bill of Information in Petraeus case

This is the issue that brought down Petaeus; are you now going to claim the Hellbitch is exempt?

[HairOfTheDog]

How can there be any proof weather or not it was important if the dumb ass deleted the proof? Come on, you have to understand that.
Just because she said it was so you believe her? Really? I would hope that you wouldn't even trust your auto mechanic on his word/without proof. OK, If you have your car in the shop and are told there is a extensive list of parts that need replaced. do you just say OK, do it and never look back? I know I don't. I want the parts that are replaced after they are removed. Just like mechanic's, politicians are shady. Never and I mean NEVER trust them on their word.

I don't think there's any chance that you'll ever be a lawyer, a law enforcement investigator, or a judge F.U.

And, if you're ever on a jury, there will likely be 11 other people involved who would not sign off if you insisted that since you can't prove a negative, the negative must be true.

So, your way of thinking doesn't hurt anybody and isn't problematic to me. And, I like reading your opinions, same as everybody elses - though your advice to me (to adopt your philosophy/thinking) isn't advice that I'll be following.

It doesn't matter to me if you always think negatively of some/all people unless proven wrong, and it doesn't matter to me if other people always think positively of some/all people unless proven wrong.

I haven't seen any evidence of wrong-doing or illegality on the part of Hillary Clinton and so I'm not assuming it occured because some people imagine that it must have occurred. However, should something more than unsubstantiated suspicion be presented, I'll consider it at that time.

And, as I've noted several times in this thread - I believe that Clinton should have used the government server for work emails, even though it wasn't required. I think she, of all people, should have foreseen that choosing to use a personal email for work would be used as ammunition against her by her detractors, even if she violated no policies and broke no laws in so doing. Further, I think it would have been better for her if she'd proactively addressed the allegations immediately, seriously, and firmly -- thereby avoiding the later failed attempt at humor and the cornered apology. I think she and her camp have managed the controversy poorly.

[pyropappy]

...I haven't seen any evidence of wrong-doing or illegality on the part of Hillary Clinton and so I'm not assuming it exists because some people imagine wrong-doing or illegality must have occurred. However, should something more than unsubstantiated suspicion be presented, I'll consider it at that time.

And, as I've noted several times in this thread - I believe that Clinton should have used the government server for work emails, even though it wasn't required. I think she, of all people, should have foreseen that choosing to use a personal email for work would be used as ammunition against her by her detractors, even if she violated no policies and broke no laws in so doing. Further, I think it would have been better for her if she'd proactively addressed the allegations immediately, seriously, and firmly -- thereby avoiding the later failed attempt at humor and the cornered apology. I think she and her camp have managed the controversy poorly.

Selective vision? Straw man?

It is not about personal email account; it is about her decision to use her own server.

A clear violation of federal law occurred; please see my last post for more detail.

If Petraeus was guilty so is she

[Carsman]

Maybe she apologized because in her heart, she knew she did wrong.

What did she do wrong? Spell it out & back it up.

Can't back it up, it was deleted!

[HairOfTheDog]

You're a broken ad hominem record, pappy. There's no selective vision or straw man present, but go ahead and imagine they exist.

I think Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account and a private server were poor choices. Her poor choices are biting her in the ass - and that's her doing, in my opinion.

But, that doesn't mean that Clinton violated policy or broke the law. There's an investigation into the matter underway. If there's evidence that Hillary Clinton violated policy or federal law in regards to her use of a private server and/or personal email account, it'll be part of investigative committee's findings - which I look forward to seeing/reading.

In the meantime, pyropappy's opinions are just that -- same as everybody else who's weighed in with a firm belief in either direction.

Petraues knowingly handed over classified information to his biographer, violating federal law -- that's not disputed, it's supported by evidence. It has not been determined that Hillary Clinton knowingly (or otherwise) mishandled classified information. She is not guilty just because he is.

[pyropappy]

You're a broken ad hominem record, pappy. There's no selective vision or straw man present, but go ahead and imagine they exist.

I think Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account and a private server were poor choices. Her poor choices are biting her in the ass - and that's her doing, in my opinion.

But, that doesn't mean that Clinton violated policy or broke the law. There's an investigation into the matter under way. If there's evidence that Hillary Clinton violated policy or federal law in regards to her use of a private server and/or personal email account, it'll be part of investigative committee's findings - which I look forward to seeing/reading.

In the meantime, pyropappy's opinions are just that -- same as everybody else who's weighed in with a firm belief in either direction.

Petraues knowingly handed over classified information to his biographer, violating federal law -- that's not disputed, it's supported by evidence. It has not been determined that Hillary Clinton knowingly (or otherwise) mishandled classified information. She is not guilty just because he is.

Sorry, the broken record is you. You are the one constantly re-framing the debate to argue the issue you want.

In post after post you talk about her use of a personal email account, not her use of the server which was stored in her home. You bring up she had the right to delete personal emails; no one is arguing that fact. We are arguing we don’t know what emails were deleted that should have been considered public property.

There is evidence of wrong doing; emails between her and Paul Begala about Libya that were not disclosed have been discovered. She does not get to determine classification of material, the issuing agency does. The fact those emails were on a private server in her home is a violation of the law; that is why the FBI took control of the server and the thumb drive containing copies of those emails in possession of her attorney.

These are standard Clinton tactics to deflect, dodge and confuse the issues. The problem here is Lanny Davis and James Carville are better at it than you.

The only real question is what will DOJ do about it? My guess is not a damn thing; that is why that jackass Trump is resonating with people. The public is sick and tired of the political class being corrupt and above the law.

[aussiefriend]

Hey HoTD, if you don't want to form a band, you should write a song! Now THAT you would be good at! For sure.

[sally]

The public is sick and tired of the political class being corrupt and above the law.

That's the way it is, she's still the toughest most experienced person available for the job, imo.

But if you don't like the corrupt system here is a good article for you, Pappy.





"Voting" with the Non-Voters

by Philip Greenspan

November 15, 2004



(Swans - November 15, 2004) As I predicted, my group, the eligible non-voters, far outnumbered the voters who chose Dubya. It wasn't much of a prediction -- it was a sure thing. Non-voters always outnumber the winning candidate.

The public has been indoctrinated to believe that voting is democracy; that citizens select the people who will chart the course and manage the country. Hogwash! Ultimate power is exercised by a hierarchy composed of corporate America and the wealthiest. Their huge contributions to both major parties insure their continual control irrespective of who wins.

Elections are an elaborate charade that diverts the public's attention while the elite pick their pockets. It is extremely successful, as almost everyone believes the fairytale that voters hold the power.

'The lesser of two evils' is a cliché repeated over and over and over again from one election to the next. There never seems to be a candidate that is enthusiastically supported by the public. But that's because the system was designed that way. If the elite are to retain power, candidates of both major parties must be approved by them. Accordingly those candidates cannot and will not pursue the interests of the public.

Those who are aware of the elite's power and refuse to buy in to their slick game feel the solution is to choose a principled third party candidate who cannot be controlled or bought off. Third parties have come and gone. None ever won the presidency or a small chunk of the Senate or House. No third party during the entire history of the country was able to make much of a dent.

The best showing occurred when the Republican Party split and Teddy Roosevelt, a former president, decided to run for a third term as the candidate of the Bull Moose Party. He had been a very popular president and his party's platform had an attractive agenda that garnered broad support. It included direct election of senators; creation of an initiative, referendum and recall process; woman's suffrage; child labor laws; and old-age pensions. He ran ahead of Taft, the Republican running for re-election, but got only 27.5 percent of the vote and 88 electors to Woodrow Wilson's 41.9 percent and 435 electors. Many other popular and well-financed third-party candidates tried but none came close to Roosevelt's figures.

Obstacles facing third parties are now greater than those of the past.

If a miracle were to happen and some charismatic chap arrived on the scene at a fortuitous time to captivate the electorate and win, those checks and balances, that we learned about in our civics classes would crush every proposal that the power elite disapproved of.

Voters who pick a third-party or write-in candidate know their choice will not make much of a splash. They vote to protest the existence of the Tweedle twins, Dee and Dum, on the top of the ballot.

Does that protest vote really have much effect? To the losing party it does, especially if it could have won had it captured those protest votes. But the power elite are quite content with many ineffective third parties. It gives the rigged system a more authentic appearance of democracy and provides more distractions from their furtive activities.

Every vote, whomever it is for, is a ratification of the established order. It implies that the voter approves of the system and will abide by its results. The system obviously stinks, but by utilizing it voters endorse it.

Why then do they bitch about the results? With an undemocratic system what results were they expecting? Their complaints should be directed against the system and not the parties or the candidates. The system is corrupt. It always was. It was created to keep the elite in power and that's what it has always done.

Loyal but dissatisfied citizens have tried to correct the deficiencies over the years. They have worked within the rotten system and have been successful after exerting major efforts over long periods of time while being harassed and abused.

Those progressive reforms listed above that were planks in the Bull Moose Party platform were eventually adopted. Wasn't that great? Doesn't that show that the system works?

It might seem so. But it is so corrupt that the reforms never seem to correct the problem. Suffrage has been extended to women, the young, minorities; and primaries have taken candidate selection away from the party bosses' smoke-filled rooms. Has the quality of candidates and elected leaders improved?

Legislation strongly favored by the public never gets enacted. Why? A special interest group turns thumbs down on it. Example: health care. In opposition are the HMO's, the insurance industry, and the medical establishment. How much moolah do you think they give the parties? Elected officials are well aware of what the public wants and puts on a show to convince the public that they are earnestly working for them. They set up committees and subcommittees; they hold hearings; they subpoena witnesses; they listen to all sides pro and con, the public and industry; they produce thousands of pages of reports; they confer, debate and compromise. And after all that noise, babble and hoopla they produce something that the generous industries are happy with and something that the media toadies can convince a desperate public is the health care they should get -- not an overwhelmingly supported socialized program like Canada's.

The results of their reforms make bad situations even worse. Recall the fanfare that greeted the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill. Did it reduce excessive payoffs thrown at political candidates? Nope, this year's election reaped more payola than ever. Great reform!

The system can't be fixed with micro changes -- it needs a macro change. Throw the whole damn thing out and create a truly democratic arrangement.

How? Don't vote.

Join the largest party of all. A party that always outnumbers the winner's total. A party that not only rejects the two major parties but the edifice that supports them and the entire crooked system. It is time to throw out the bath water and Rosemary's baby as well.

Rather than expend time, effort and money on creating a third party to appeal to a small fraction of the electorate, it should be expended to keep more people from the polls.

Although the non-vote group is sizeable, that information does not get much disclosure. Articles analyzing elections often break down the results by various categories --gender, party, age, race, religion, etc. -- but the non-voters are rarely mentioned. How many times have you heard or read that Bush was the choice of half the electorate? Where were the non-voters in that calculation? His share was really about one-quarter.

Why is the existence of such a large block of people neglected by the news media? Is it because this great democratic society is humiliated that so many of its citizens have checked out of this most important ritual?

The establishment, desirous of reducing the non-voting percentage, continually urges the public to vote, claiming it's a civic responsibility. Baloney! That corrupt system must be replaced first. The establishment's humiliation should be augmented. How legitimate would an election seem if ample press coverage revealed that two-thirds or three-quarters did not take part?

Advertising campaigns advocating non-voting should be launched. Imaginative copy might induce discouraged voters that non-voting is the key they've been searching for. They will still be voting in an alternate way knowing that a non-vote is a vote against a corrupt undemocratic system!

[pyropappy]

Thank you, but I am intimately acquainted with the corrupt systems in place in DC. I have years of experiencing them first hand.

[HairOfTheDog]

Sorry, the broken record is you. You are the one constantly re-framing the debate to argue the issue you want.

In post after post you talk about her use of a personal email account, not her use of the server which was stored in her home. You bring up she had the right to delete personal emails; no one is arguing that fact. We are arguing we don’t know what emails were deleted that should have been considered public property.

That's false, pappy.

We were discussing today's official DOJ statement; the statement which dealt specifically with the deletion of personal emails. And, I did mention the server before your arrival.

You then came in, started with "straw man" bullshit again, and focused the conversation on the server - to which I responded.

It's all upthread.

There is evidence of wrong doing; emails between her and Paul Begala about Libya that were not disclosed have been discovered. She does not get to determine classification of material, the issuing agency does. The fact those emails were on a private server in her home is a violation of the law; that is why the FBI took control of the server and the thumb drive containing copies of those emails in possession of her attorney.

Your assessment and opinion are noted. I've not argued against your opinion, nor have I attempted to change it. I'm simply not accepting it as fact. That seems to really bother you, and there's nothing I can do about that other than lie to pacify you, which is not my style.

I did, however, correct your false statement that Hillary Clinton must be guilty of mishandling governmental information because David Patraeus was guilty of doing so (when he knowingly handed his mistress/biographer the sensitive information, to which he later pleaded guilty). The fact that he's guilty certainly doesn't make Hillary Clinton guilty, and Hillary Clinton hasn't been charged with anything.

These are standard Clinton tactics to deflect, dodge and confuse the issues. The problem here is Lanny Davis and James Carville are better at it than you.

No tactics (Clinton or otherwise), no deflecting, no dodging, no attempt or desire to change your view point.

There are conflicting opinions and interpretations by laymen such as yourself, legal pundits, commentators, media sources, etc... I read what's presented.

And, I will wait for the investigators to finish their work, reveal their findings, and release their official report on this one - as I've said multiple times.

The only real question is what will DOJ do about it? My guess is not a damn thing; that is why that jackass Trump is resonating with people. The public is sick and tired of the political class being corrupt and above the law.

We'll see what happens as a result of the investigation.

If the investigators conclude that there is evidence of official wrong-doing and policy violations and breaking federal law -- as you insist -- you can say, "see, I was right all along!!"

If the investigators conclude that there is no evidence of official wrong-doing and policy violations and breaking federal law, and there is no action taken against Clinton, you can accept it and move on. Or, you can insist that you were right all along and there must be a conspiracy or cover up in play.

I will accept the official findings, whether they confirm your suspicions or contradict them.

[Duchess]

Can't back it up, it was deleted!

Face it, you've got nothing except an opinion. Same goes for Pappy.