Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Hill Dawg? Lol, no. I can't see that happening unless I show up to vote blackout drunk.

For some reason I got the impression you were a Hillary (career criminal) supporter. Good man for not perpetuating Waahington insider corruption

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Fair enough. You probably shouldn't vote for Hilary. I'm a pragmatist. I would have loved to see Sanders as the nominee, but at least a Clinton presidency will mostly continue my man Barry's policies, which are fine with me (mostly). All this bullshit about emails is really beside the point. Especially when a clearly republican head of the fbi says there was no intent. Meanwhile, the U.K., in ruins just put out a report on all the failings of the British and American decisions leading up to the disaster that is Iraq. Hundreds of thousands dead is not old news to me. I still want to see congressional inquiries into that here. That would actually be good use of their time.

Interesting for me:

All the "no intent" stuff being bandied about. It's very common that crimes do not require intent. All of a sudden as a cover for Hills that's important. I guess she didn't intend to hide any government records when she set up her own email server says ---??? No one. So give me a break on the no intent crap - she had intent to break the law from Day 1.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Interesting for me:

All the "no intent" stuff being bandied about. It's very common that crimes do not require intent. All of a sudden as a cover for Hills that's important. I guess she didn't intend to hide any government records when she set up her own email server says ---??? No one. So give me a break on the no intent crap - she had intent to break the law from Day 1.

Are you saying here the head of the FBI is implicit in a cover up of criminal acts? Is the theory that he was bribed? What is his motive? It has to be monetary gain. It can't be power can it?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

For some reason I got the impression you were a Hillary (career criminal) supporter. Good man for not perpetuating Waahington insider corruption

Dude, the only time I've voted for a Democrat for POTUS was Obama's 1st term. Gary Johnson is my man this time around.

More often than not I'm "throwing away my vote".

GRR Spartan wrote:Is Melissa trying to build subscriptions for The American Spectator?

After the meeting was made public, Lynch said, sort of, that she would not rule on the case but would accept the decision of prosecutors. Actually Comey is an investigator, not a prosecutor. But in the circumstances he was forced to function like one. He would decide whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee would be prosecuted.

Probably he felt the same way about this I suspect as a local state or federal judge feels when he is called on to decide a credentials challenge at a Republican or Democratic national convention. Such cases are always thrown out of court.

Judges don't say so, but I'm sure they're thinking something like this: Who am I, a local judge, to decide who should be the nominee of a major party for president of the United States? I wasn't appointed or elected to make that kind of decision. Leave it to the delegates and the voters.

It would be surprising if Comey, with his sterling reputation and knowing the likely political ramifications, didn't feel the same way. A Clinton indictment would probably mean she would be shoved aside by the Democratic Party, in favor of the obvious substitute candidate Joe Biden.

LooseGoose wrote:From that radical right winger Michael Barone.....

Hillary Clinton's non-indictment may not help her

After the meeting was made public, Lynch said, sort of, that she would not rule on the case but would accept the decision of prosecutors. Actually Comey is an investigator, not a prosecutor. But in the circumstances he was forced to function like one. He would decide whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee would be prosecuted.

Probably he felt the same way about this I suspect as a local state or federal judge feels when he is called on to decide a credentials challenge at a Republican or Democratic national convention. Such cases are always thrown out of court.

Judges don't say so, but I'm sure they're thinking something like this: Who am I, a local judge, to decide who should be the nominee of a major party for president of the United States? I wasn't appointed or elected to make that kind of decision. Leave it to the delegates and the voters.

It would be surprising if Comey, with his sterling reputation and knowing the likely political ramifications, didn't feel the same way. A Clinton indictment would probably mean she would be shoved aside by the Democratic Party, in favor of the obvious substitute candidate Joe Biden.

LooseGoose wrote:From that radical right winger Michael Barone.....

Hillary Clinton's non-indictment may not help her

After the meeting was made public, Lynch said, sort of, that she would not rule on the case but would accept the decision of prosecutors. Actually Comey is an investigator, not a prosecutor. But in the circumstances he was forced to function like one. He would decide whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee would be prosecuted.

Probably he felt the same way about this I suspect as a local state or federal judge feels when he is called on to decide a credentials challenge at a Republican or Democratic national convention. Such cases are always thrown out of court.

Judges don't say so, but I'm sure they're thinking something like this: Who am I, a local judge, to decide who should be the nominee of a major party for president of the United States? I wasn't appointed or elected to make that kind of decision. Leave it to the delegates and the voters.

It would be surprising if Comey, with his sterling reputation and knowing the likely political ramifications, didn't feel the same way. A Clinton indictment would probably mean she would be shoved aside by the Democratic Party, in favor of the obvious substitute candidate Joe Biden.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:From that radical right winger Michael Barone.....

Hillary Clinton's non-indictment may not help her

He lost me there. He doesn't know what judges think or how they apply the law. And the 9 judges on the Supreme Court gave us Bush Jr.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

He lost me there. He doesn't know what judges think or how they apply the law. And the 9 judges on the Supreme Court gave us Bush Jr.

Actually the votes did Wags.   Every recount done by every media organization AFTER the SC decision showed Bush winning.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

He lost me there. He doesn't know what judges think or how they apply the law. And the 9 judges on the Supreme Court gave us Bush Jr.

Actually the votes did Wags. Every recount done by every media organization AFTER the SC decision showed Bush winning.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Actually the votes did Wags. Every recount done by every media organization AFTER the SC decision showed Bush winning.

Not the point. Nobody knew and many people believed a hand count would give Gore the win. The Supreme Court made the decision, along party lines, to say stop it.

My point in disagreeing with the editorial was judges at the highest level did what he said they refused to do. Outcome be damned. If the Scotus didn't want to, they wouldn't have reviewed the case.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

Not the point. Nobody knew and many people believed a hand count would give Gore the win. The Supreme Court made the decision, along party lines, to say stop it.

My point in disagreeing with the editorial was judges at the highest level did what he said they refused to do. Outcome be damned. If the Scotus didn't want to, they wouldn't have reviewed the case.

OK, got it. Sort of like when they said a tax wasn't really a tax to save Obamacare. All of these are examples of the judges and politicians getting away with shit that none of us would.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance

So, ummm, why exactly does she continue to have security clearance in the first place?  Don't they remove those clearances when you no longer hold the office those clearances were granted under?

Floyd Robertson wrote:Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance

Rocinante wrote:This is a stunt. She'd still be eligible for the presidency and would immediately be granted clearance as the Commander in Chief.

Rocinante wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:Senate bill would revoke Clinton's security clearance

So, ummm, why exactly does she continue to have security clearance in the first place?  Don't they remove those clearances when you no longer hold the office those clearances were granted under?

Clearance isn't the same as access.  

I still have my "clearance" from the Navy.  Doesn't mean I have access to classified materials.

This is a stunt.  She'd still be eligible for the presidency and would immediately be granted clearance as the Commander in Chief.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:This is a stunt. She'd still be eligible for the presidency and would immediately be granted clearance as the Commander in Chief.

God save us all, I never thought I'd see the day when I was rooting for Biden to win the Presidency.

When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation.

I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.

Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential-selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.

And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.

I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history. I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’s.)

But I think I understand it.

LooseGoose wrote:You know....this actually makes some sense.

Comey: A Theory

When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation.

I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation.

Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential-selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history.

And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances.

I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history. I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts’s.)

But I think I understand it.

Rocinante wrote:Or maybe the 3 (omg) emails that actually had classification markings on them were not actually makes classified in the subject line and could easily have been missed in the text.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:Or maybe the 3 (omg) emails that actually had classification markings on them were not actually makes classified in the subject line and could easily have been missed in the text.

I know it's sort of Orwellian but whether the classified material is marked or not is irrelevant.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I know it's sort of Orwellian but whether the classified material is marked or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. I have personally dealt with reams of classified information in my time. Discussions between officers during flight operations that are as mundane as two old people discussing the newspaper are classified as default when they happen. When things actually are "marked" they have been reviewed so you know there is material that requires sensitive handling. As far as we know (and this has been alluded to), the classified materials may have been something like where a meeting between the secretary and a foreign dignitary wold take place (yes that would be classified prior to official releases). To get around this, now we have classified servers and networks, where everything transmitted on them is considered classified until reviewed EXCEPT personal information, which individuals are allowed to delete as they see fit without review. Her failing was that she was discussing things that would have been considered classified (but may have been mundane) on a network not designated as such.

In my opinion. Which is why it doesn't bother me.

The Facts

Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation

Floyd Robertson wrote:Still lying.

Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’

The Facts

Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I know it's sort of Orwellian but whether the classified material is marked or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. I have personally dealt with reams of classified information in my time. Discussions between officers during flight operations that are as mundane as two old people discussing the newspaper are classified as default when they happen. When things actually are "marked" they have been reviewed so you know there is material that requires sensitive handling. As far as we know (and this has been alluded to), the classified materials may have been something like where a meeting between the secretary and a foreign dignitary wold take place (yes that would be classified prior to official releases). To get around this, now we have classified servers and networks, where everything transmitted on them is considered classified until reviewed EXCEPT personal information, which individuals are allowed to delete as they see fit without review. Her failing was that she was discussing things that would have been considered classified (but may have been mundane) on a network not designated as such.

In my opinion. Which is why it doesn't bother me.

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I disagree. I have personally dealt with reams of classified information in my time. Discussions between officers during flight operations that are as mundane as two old people discussing the newspaper are classified as default when they happen. When things actually are "marked" they have been reviewed so you know there is material that requires sensitive handling. As far as we know (and this has been alluded to), the classified materials may have been something like where a meeting between the secretary and a foreign dignitary wold take place (yes that would be classified prior to official releases). To get around this, now we have classified servers and networks, where everything transmitted on them is considered classified until reviewed EXCEPT personal information, which individuals are allowed to delete as they see fit without review. Her failing was that she was discussing things that would have been considered classified (but may have been mundane) on a network not designated as such.

In my opinion. Which is why it doesn't bother me.

Yeah we get it. Make excuses for the party you support and use double standards for the one you don't. You are giving her a pass because she has a D next to her name. In your fucked up head you even convinced yourself of pure hypotheticals and speculation as to why it doesn't bother you.

The_Dude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I disagree. I have personally dealt with reams of classified information in my time. Discussions between officers during flight operations that are as mundane as two old people discussing the newspaper are classified as default when they happen. When things actually are "marked" they have been reviewed so you know there is material that requires sensitive handling. As far as we know (and this has been alluded to), the classified materials may have been something like where a meeting between the secretary and a foreign dignitary wold take place (yes that would be classified prior to official releases). To get around this, now we have classified servers and networks, where everything transmitted on them is considered classified until reviewed EXCEPT personal information, which individuals are allowed to delete as they see fit without review. Her failing was that she was discussing things that would have been considered classified (but may have been mundane) on a network not designated as such.

In my opinion. Which is why it doesn't bother me.

Yeah we get it. Make excuses for the party you support and use double standards for the one you don't. You are giving her a pass because she has a D next to her name. In your fucked up head you even convinced yourself of pure hypotheticals and speculation as to why it doesn't bother you.

Floyd Robertson wrote:lol, now she blames using her personal email server on Colin Powell.

Hillary Told FBI That Colin Powell Recommended She Use Personal Email

Nothing is ever her fault.  Maybe if somebody told her to jump off a bridge she'd do it.

Powell says he doesn't remember the conversation.

TheReal_LWS wrote:Bernie or HRC? One old white guy is as good as another.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:lol, now she blames using her personal email server on Colin Powell.

Hillary Told FBI That Colin Powell Recommended She Use Personal Email

Nothing is ever her fault.  Maybe if somebody told her to jump off a bridge she'd do it.

Powell says he doesn't remember the conversation.

And why would Powell say anything else? Not saying anything other than that last line... What did you expect? "Oh yeah we totes talked about that."

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:lol, now she blames using her personal email server on Colin Powell.

Hillary Told FBI That Colin Powell Recommended She Use Personal Email

Nothing is ever her fault.  Maybe if somebody told her to jump off a bridge she'd do it.

Powell says he doesn't remember the conversation.

And why would Powell say anything else? Not saying anything other than that last line... What did you expect? "Oh yeah we totes talked about that."

If you scrape away all of the spin and the political positioning that Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email server has spawned, you are left with these facts:

1. Clinton is the first secretary of state to exclusively use a private email account for official business.

2. She is also the first secretary of state to have a private email server housed at her home.

3. When asked by the State Department to turn over her emails, Clinton had a team of lawyers go through them to separate those that were purely personal and those that touched on some aspect of her professional life. The personal emails were deleted permanently off the server. The professional ones were turned over to the State Department. Here's how that broke down:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

And why would Powell say anything else? Not saying anything other than that last line... What did you expect? "Oh yeah we totes talked about that."

I know he's just posturing. If he used his own server while SoS, it was wrong. If he told Hillary to do it and she took the advice without checking the legality, that's the issue.

“Her people have been trying to pin it on me,” Powell, 79, told PEOPLE Saturday night at the Apollo in the Hamptons 2016 Night of Legends fête in East Hampton, New York.

“The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,” Powell added.

Why does the former diplomat believe this to be the case?

“Why do you think?”