Hillary Clinton is Done

[Bob001]

I'm not sure why you put that in quotes as I don't think she ever said that.

No, but pretty close, actually:

“Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...clintons-cnn-interview-on-her-personal-email/

But:

Guidance published in the State Department’s foreign affairs manual call for employees to use secure, department-approved computer systems — even for unclassified information. And a 2011 diplomatic cable issued in Mrs. Clinton’s name instructs employees to avoid using their personal emails for government business.

 

[wareyin]

No, but pretty close, actually:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...clintons-cnn-interview-on-her-personal-email/

But:

I can't tell you the number of times I've been to, or worked for, businesses that didn't allow personal phone calls, while the boss made personal phone calls. Or internet usage was limited to strictly work related usage, while the boss would be looking at whatever they wanted. The head of the organization not following the rules low level grunts are expected to is surprising to you?

 

[Bob001]

I can't tell you the number of times I've been to, or worked for, businesses that didn't allow personal phone calls, while the boss made personal phone calls. Or internet usage was limited to strictly work related usage, while the boss would be looking at whatever they wanted. The head of the organization not following the rules low level grunts are expected to is surprising to you?

Unlike your bosses using company resources for personal business, the issue is that the Secretary of the State made unique arrangements to conduct the official business of the United States through her personal server, out of reach of FOIA requests, Congressional inquiries, archivists and historians, despite her knowledge that federal rules and custom -- if not actual law at that time -- required her to do otherwise. When somebody acts like she's hiding something, it's not wildly unreasonable to ask why.

 

[DavidJames]

No, but pretty close, actually:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/...clintons-cnn-interview-on-her-personal-email/

But:

No, not really. She just claimed what she did was legal. The rest you made up.

 

[logger]

Some talking heads are blaming Obama for pushing this email scandal to the top. They say he's working on his third term and wants a president who will continue his policies. Que Joe Biden.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Magical? Certainly not. But elucidating and illuminating, yes. And I repeat that some of us expect our officials to maintain a higher standard than "I can do anything I want if it's not illegal!"

Illuminating what? What dark secret is lurking in those emails?

Oh that's right, you don't know but it must be something, after all Hillary is evil.

It was business as usual but the GOP knows how to take something that for anyone else (Jeb, GW, Cheney, Powell) was a passing annoyance and turn it into a faux outrage.

Media double standard.

 

[SezMe]

For indictment or conviction?

What's that saying? A Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich.

 

[SezMe]

That's her defense: "I didn't do anything illegal." But that's a pretty low bar.

Yeah. Kinda like this turd from a famous GOPer: "If the President does it, it is not illegal."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah. Kinda like this turd from a famous GOPer: "If the President does it, it is not illegal."

No, not like that.

Could you state specifically what the crime was and why it matters?

She wasn't transparent enough? Is that it? Oh my, I'm outraged.

 

[Trebuchet]

Some talking heads are blaming Obama for pushing this email scandal to the top. They say he's working on his third term and wants a president who will continue his policies. Que Joe Biden.

Dumbest....Post....Ever. And you mean "cue".
Would you care to specify the "talking heads"?

 

[Fudbucker]

What's that saying? A Grand Jury could indict a ham sandwich.

In ordinary matters, but we're talking about a former Democratic Secretary of State begin indicted while a Democrat is president. That changes things. An indictment of Hillary would finish her, politically.

What kind of odds are you giving on an indictment? I don't think it's that likely, but I wouldn't be hugely surprised.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, not like that.

Could you state specifically what the crime was and why it matters?

She wasn't transparent enough? Is that it? Oh my, I'm outraged.

Is that our new standard as Democrats for acceptable behavior of our nominees? That they haven't done anything illegal? Can't we expect a little more integrity? That really is setting the bar low.

 

[Mike!]

Is that our new standard as Democrats for acceptable behavior of our nominees? That they haven't done anything illegal? Can't we expect a little more integrity? That really is setting the bar low.

No, that's starting with the bar lying directly, flat on the ground.
The next step is to just bury the darn thing and start asking, "Bar? Bar? What is this 'bar' you speak of?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is that our new standard as Democrats for acceptable behavior of our nominees? That they haven't done anything illegal? Can't we expect a little more integrity? That really is setting the bar low.

You can expect all the integrity you want. If you want perfect integrity, who's your candidate?

I prefer to look at the bigger picture, none of them are perfect.

Sanders: Might not be able to win.
Clinton: Hopefully she's competent enough to put this crap to bed.
Anyone on the GOP side? PPffft. Ain't got nothing worth a pile of beans there.

 

[SezMe]

What kind of odds are you giving on an indictment? I don't think it's that likely, but I wouldn't be hugely surprised.

No bet - we're in agreement! And by that, I mean your second sentence. The 2016 race is not done dumping big surprises on all of us. I would not at all be surprised that some hot shot DA looking for his/her 15 minutes of fame uses HRC as their vehicle. Not likely but disgustingly possible.

 

[logger]

Dumbest post ever Trebuchet?

It was KT McFarland on a local radio show.

It is well known in political circles that a president needs three terms to finish what they started, do you have any clue why Obama has been joking about it.

Your clue would be George H Bush's first term was a continuation of Reagan's, he finish much of what Reagan started.

Obama doesn't want Hillary to be his third term, frankly who would.

As a liberal and as usual, you have no clue how politics works.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Corrected what will be assumed to be an accidental misspelling of another members username.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

It does seem as though many in the Democratic establishment are tentatively backing away from Hillary. This may not end well for her. I don't mean that anything will come of it; I mean, it may prove to have been too much of a drain on her momentum and image.

Clinton’s campaign has shifted into high gear on new messaging and outreach efforts following a rocky press conference last week and new accusations from a judge that she did violate government policy by using a private server. Frustrated allies admit that earlier attempts to stonewall what they see as a partisan witch hunt didn’t work.

“The campaign made several really significant mistakes in the way they handled it and the tone they took," former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a longtime Clinton ally, said.

Rendell, who ran the Democratic National Committee while Bill Clinton was President, said she should have turned over her server months ago instead of waiting for the FBI to force her, admitted Clinton’s testy press conference in North Las Vegas didn’t help things and called her joke that she loves Snapchat because "those messages disappear all by themselves" last week in Iowa “incredibly tone-deaf.”

“It made light of something people are taking a serious look at,” he said. “There's no question the way the campaign has handled this has exacerbated the problem.”

Other Clinton backers agree - and worry there's no easy solution besides riding out a storm that has no end in sight and could encourage Vice President Biden to enter the race.

A Democratic operative at one of the outside groups supporting Clinton lamented that “such a complex and constantly changing story” made it hard for Clinton to respond effectively.

"It's a simple message to hurt her and they haven't yet arrived at a simple message to defend her," said the operative.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/polit...ambles-control-email-damage-article-1.2334616

 

[Axiom_Blade]

If I thought Sanders had a chance in hell of winning, I might support him over Clinton. But reality is, running Bernie against whoever ends up as the GOP candidate is downright scary.

IMO, that's one big reason why the US is so screwed up right now: Too many people are playing elections like it's fantasy football. The candidate that's the most "electable" is the one that's most "normal". So, obviously, that's gonna be a vote for the status quo. This, I think, is why change in the Democratic Party is so glacial. Nobody wants to bet on a losing horse...so, to play it safe, they just do what they've done before. What's that old saying? "If you keep doing what you've always done, you're going to keep getting what you've always got"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

IMO, that's one big reason why the US is so screwed up right now: Too many people are playing elections like it's fantasy football. The candidate that's the most "electable" is the one that's most "normal". So, obviously, that's gonna be a vote for the status quo. This, I think, is why change in the Democratic Party is so glacial. Nobody wants to bet on a losing horse...so, to play it safe, they just do what they've done before. What's that old saying? "If you keep doing what you've always done, you're going to keep getting what you've always got"?

And you would have us do what instead? Risk Trump actually winning? Risk some other Evangelical/anti-union/backward neanderthal winning?

I actually think Clinton will make a very good President. Would I like to get rid of the moneyed influence Sanders might offer? Yes, but like Obama, what good is a Progressive when they aren't powerful enough to get anything Progressive through Congress?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

And you would have us do what instead? Risk Trump actually winning?

Do you seriously think that's a possibility?

Risk some other Evangelical/anti-union/backward neanderthal winning?

I would have people vote for the best candidate.

I actually think Clinton will make a very good President. Would I like to get rid of the moneyed influence Sanders might offer?

There's a bit more at stake here...but

Yes, but like Obama, what good is a Progressive when they aren't powerful enough to get anything Progressive through Congress?

Is Obama what passes for "progressive" in the Democratic Party?