.- Page 28

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 10:37am

Ryan is beginning his 2020 campaign.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 10:56am

PJ - Not sure why you think I only care about Hillary. If others have broken the law, let them be punished. You'll get no opposition to that from me. One very important distinction, however trite it may seem to you: Rice and Powell never used a private server. They periodically used their own private/personal email address. Not suggesting that is any better, only that it is different. 

[theaterdrew]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 11:22am

PalJoey, I 100% agree that this is selective persecution in its inception and that the practices of all others should be called into question as a matter of equitable treatment.

BUT we're talking politics here, and politics is all in the appearances.  The mass public skims the surface and can't get their heads around nuances.  Do you disagree that there is a trust issue here, fair or not?  She has to get people to the polls.  

I agreed with her refusal to release the Wall Street speech transcripts because I thought the negatives outweighed any positives there.  I was in one of those swing states recently and was appalled to overhear yet another a conversation in a public place about how they wanted to vote for a "woman president but not THAT woman."  The FBI director's unprecedented rebuke is not going to get her past that, regardless of the decision not to recommend prosecution.  I also think what I suggest blunts the efforts of the Repubs to continue this with hearings.  If she embraces it and takes it on, it bolsters the outrage against their waste of time and money.  If not, she keeps giving the same answers that the public does not like and it looks like she's running from it.

Trump hate may or may not be enough.  I wouldn't take that risk.  I truly believe that once in office, Hillary Clinton is going to accomplish more to make the lives of ordinary Americans better than the past several administrations combined.  It sucks that as an accomplished woman who has worked through the system to position herself to be able to be the president, she's hated on for the characteristics that made that possible.  But at some point, you do what is politically necessary, and I do think a mea culpa that is perceived as sincere (because it is but also because it says what the public needs to hear) would be politically the right way to go.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 12:28pm

As stipulated in the reprort:

 

Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business. Powell did not retain those emails or make printed copies.

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 3:43pm

Do you go all in on the Munsters theme with that candidacy Brian, and who plays the other characters if we're going to elect Eddie?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 3:50pm

I think one of the reasons this media storm will not affect voters is that since wikileaks and Edward Snowden, the public has lost its sense of trust in the government's ability to guard electronic secrets.

Last year, the State Department computers suffered a massive and serious attack that is considered a major security threat. But there was not much concern on the part of the public--OR the media about the State Department attack. 

I don't think people in general think what she did was any less secure than the State Department's computers. In fact, maybe her server was more secure.

The media storm over this is just today's Witch Burning.

It won't affect the election.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 4:53pm

That is impossible since her privatized servers did not meet federal standards for security clearance with respect to hosting top-secret and confidential/classified information or exchanges. FBI Director Comey said himself it is more than reasonable to believe domestic hackers or foreign actors could have gained access to said material.  

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 5:29pm

PalJoey said: "I think one of the reasons this media storm will not affect voters is that since wikileaks and Edward Snowden, the public has lost its sense of trust in the government's ability to guard electronic secrets. . . ."

 

I think another reason that at least some of us are willing to forgive/forget is that this is typically framed as Clinton's "email" problem; i.e., a problem relating to something with which we have had a personal relationship for a very long time. 

 

Most of us of a certain age lived through the technical revolution of the past 30+ years and we each matured and evolved at our own pace.  In the early days, many of us experienced company rules relating to work vs personal email that were theoretically sound but impractical.  For years I was told that I could not use my personal email account to correspond with my clients, but that was quickly abandoned when my contacts realized that the only way to reach me 24/7 was to use personal accounts.  Or, when it became possible to access work email outside the office, I quietly asked my contacts to continue to use personal email because (yes, I admit it) I couldn't deal with the need to carry a personal cell phone, a company cell phone, and sometimes a pager.  When the technology improved and it was possible to access everything on one device, it took awhile to make the transition. 

 

Reading over what I just wrote, it does seem silly.  But it didn't feel silly at the time.  So when she is raked over the coals for doing what I did, I get it.  It was wrong.  It won't happen again.  I'm sorry.  Let's move on.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/6/16 at 5:46pm

 

FBI Director Comey said himself it is more than reasonable to believe domestic hackers or foreign actors could have gained access to said material. 
 

No, he said the FBI found "no direct evidence” of a breach by a foreign power or "other hostile actors.”

Keep fishing.

 

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 12:44am

One of the wisest things Bernie ever said was, "the public is sick and tired of hearing about your [sic] damn emails."

[Steve C.]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 6:37am

Again and again, the effing media gives Donald Trump hours and HOURS of free publicity and advertising and their subliminal support of this classless, petulant, and feeble minded (or should I say fecal-minded) igneous rock. Granted, we knew most of the railing and ranting would be about the "special treatment of crooked Hillary" but to have this racist, stand there and compare the Star of David to Disney and Frozen, it's just appalling. "I love the Jewish people! My son-in-law is Jewish"....(let's start rounding them up now)...If there truly are any angels still in the world, it's time to get your wings on. 

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 7:40am

Comey will be testifying before the Congressional Oversight Committee today.  This will be very interesting theater.  While the GOP motives here are obvious, this presents the Dem committee members with an opportunity as well.  

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 11:45am

Trump's tirade in Ohio followed by his Twitter nonsense leads me to wonder if he is trying to derail his candidacy.  Watch out for Paul Ryan in Cleveland! 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 12:45pm

brdlwyr, that's really interesting you say that. I hadn't thought about this for a while but that's the exact same thing that 7-8 months ago, people were saying he would do if he was the nominee. 

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 1:13pm

Based on reading 2nd hand reports of Comey's testimony before the Congressional Oversight Committee, it looks like the GOP gained nothing except an opportunity to grandstand.  That said, Chairman Chaffetz claims he is going to ask the FBI to open another investigation into whether or not Clinton lied to Congress in her prior testimony.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 1:33pm

They need to just ****ing let this go.

[Petralicious]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 2:11pm

To those who think President Clinton is not always a plus for Hilarys campaign, it is time to hush and give him credit and applause for his meeting with Ms Lynch

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 2:23pm

 

Back to the story of Trump's anti-Semitic tweet and his Jewish son-in-law's pathetic defense of it, shockingly invoking his Holocaust-survivor grandparents.

New wrinkle in the story: The son-in-law's other Jewish relatives don't appreciate his using the memory of their grandparents to defend Trump's indefensible actions:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/jared-kushner-family-trump-holocaust-225210

 

 

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 2:25pm

 

From that article:

 

“That my grandparents have been dragged into this is a shame. Thank you Jared for using something sacred and special to the descendants of Joe and Rae Kushner to validate the sloppy manner in which you've handled this campaign. From the references to 'Palestine' at the AIPAC conference (which got Donald jeered) to the justification of the itchy Twitter fingers your father­in­law has, you've managed to further prove what so many of us have known for many years. Kudos to you for having gone this far? no one expected this. But for the sake of the family name, which may have no meaning to you but still has meaning to others, please don't invoke our grandparents in vain just so you can sleep better at night. It is self serving and disgusting.”

 

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 2:30pm

Kushner would not pass muster if the media paid any attention to him.  Trump likes to use the term "rigged', so let's see how that applies here.  According to multiple sources, Kushner was an average student, at best.  However, he was accepted into Harvard.  I'm sure it's just coincidence that his family made a $2.5 million dollar donation to Harvard in advance of his acceptance.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/10/4/harvard-to-the-highest-bidder-how/

[SNAFU]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 2:38pm

I listened to the testimony of Comey before the Senate Committee today, well most of it. I have to say, he came off quite well. I was amazed at how much of a witch hunt atmosphere the whole proceeding took on.

 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 4:58pm

Okay can someone explain this to me because I am not understanding how someone is not being brought up on some kind of charges when Comey clearly stated in his testimony the following:

Under withering criticism from Republicans, Mr. Comey stood his ground on his recommendation against criminal prosecution for Mrs. Clinton and her aides. But he said Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee for president, had been “negligent” in her handling of classified material, and he said that her lawyers probably deleted classified material as they destroyed thousands of her emails.

If there was nothing to hide then why were e-mails being destroyed? Isn't that tampering with evidence? 

And if she isn't lying then why did he go on to say:

.....repeatedly acknowledged that the public statements by the former secretary of state, including some she delivered during a sworn appearance before Congress last year, were contradicted by the facts uncovered during the F.B.I. investigation.

So I'm not understanding how she is in no way being held accountable by being so negligent as to use a private e-mail server to handle official business.

“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received,” Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, said during several hours of testimony by Mr. Comey before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Was that true?”

“That’s not true,” Mr. Comey said. Asked later about Mrs. Clinton’s assertion during congressional testimony that none of her emails had been marked “classified,” Mr. Comey said three emails bore small markings indicating that they contained classified information.

It's all just so shady.

 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 5:04pm

Just the fact that she chose to conduct her business affairs on a vulnerable private server was extremely negligent and downright dangerous.

She had no full-time cyber security professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, “sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” Her use of “a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”

In the end, the risks created by Mrs. Clinton’s insistence on keeping her communications on a private server may prove to be a larger issue than the relatively small amount of classified information investigators said they found on her system.

 

 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 5:06pm

I am just trying to understand how she is not being held accountable in some way for her extremely negligent actions. 

Oh and I just want to clarify that I do not hate her. I agree with some of her policies and ideas but her integrity (at least for me) comes into question with this. 

Updated On: 7/7/16 at 05:06 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/7/16 at 5:31pm

Because there was no criminal intent in those negligent actions, which are only branded as "extremely" by Hillary Haters. 

Clinton claimed she had no emails marked classified. Comey said in his statement “Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

If you look at the State Department clarification of Comey's remarks, it turns out there were 2. Two. And they were phone logs. 

Federal prosecutors routinely dispose of referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information unless there are related charges, like espionage. There is no espionage involved in those two phone logs.

Her integrity is higher than almost anyone else in government today. 

Obama himself sent and received emails to and from her BlackBerry, knowing she was using the private server, as Colin Powell, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove had done. There was nothing unusal in this...until the Hillary Haters ginned it up and you believed it.