Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[PhantomWolf]

The Jan 2016 date is the date that markings were put on it. In fact, the declassify date (precisely 15 years after the date of the email) implies that the State Department considers the email to have been classified as of the date of its creation, which is April 8, 2012.

And yet it was declassified on the exact same date that the classification was added, check the footer.

I think Comey elided over this point when he talked about "up-classification." I believe that it was an error to use such a term because it implies that the emails weren't considered classified at the time they were produced. Almost certainly, most of them were. It is extremely unlikely that some information would be considered unclassified at the time it was created or obtained, and then later, certain events would cause it to become sensitive. Once again, it's the distinction between being classified without markings and classified with markings. It's a distinction without a meaningful legal difference.

The up classification occurs when things change, or because other departments get involved. Consider this. I'm working in Pakistan for the DoS, after a drone strike, I head out to site of the attack and then create a report of the damage, what the media is saying, how it affected the neighbours and so on. All of this is publicly available information, it is seen on Television sets around the world, so what us the point of me classifying my report. There is none, until the CIA see it. For them, anything discussing drones is pat of a top secret project, and so that report would be reclassified Top Secret. Another example may be were basic reports are being sent by an asset about information that could come from many different sources, but then when enough of the reports are filed, it might be enough to identify the asset, thus the reports have their classification changed to protect the asset from being identified.

As Secretary of State, even a thought that Hillary put in the form of an email could be extremely sensitive, but if she doesn't mark it as classified herself, or ask somebody to do it, it won't be marked as classified. It is still classified, however. Context is everything, and it's hard to believe that the Secretary of State was not producing classified information at a prodigious rate, given the importance of her thoughts, opinions, and actions to the national security of the United States.

If this were true, then there would be no unclassified communications system at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet it was declassified on the exact same date that the classification was added, check the footer.

Face palm. The "unclassified" document is the one with all the redactions on it. The redactions are covering up the classified data.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That strikes me as a dubious claim.

Go and read up on it. France and the UK had already announced that they were going to act, and had gathered together a coalition to attack Libya, which included a number of Arab nations and Canada, prior to Clinton meeting with the French President and the Cameron in the days leading to the US agreeing to join. One of the things that convinced her was that the French and the UK had other Arab leaders on board and looked as if they were getting it through the UN Security council without either Russia or China objecting. The French and quite likely the UK had troops on the ground before the US decided to go with them, both of those countries were committed, even if the US said no.

No it hadn't. Obama never got authorization from Congress, even after the 60-day grace period prescribed by the War Powers Resolution had expired.

1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

In doing this the Senate showed that they were willing to back the action in Libya

Well, it did go wrong, and the US refused to pick up the pieces, so that hardly seems like a good reason in retrospect.

Depends on your definition of "going wrong". The action was intended to aid in the removal of Gaddafi. This was achieved. There was no intention of going in on the ground and taking over, that was left up to those living in the country and who were the ones that toppled Gaddafi to do what they thought best.

The worry of things going wrong was not that the rebels would turn out to not be able to organise a party in a brewery, but rather that the UK and French planes might be shot down resulting in the US having to provide military support for them.

Yes, "leading from behind" for a "kinetic action." Only the Obama administration can take fecklessness and cowardice and turn it into a virtue. It's truly the most Orwellian administration I have ever seen.

Because the US has to be the first in and calling the shots every time?

I'm not against the US getting involved to overthrow evil dictators, but the fact is Qaddafi was actually a pretty damn good evil dictator as evil dictators go. He was well-contained and cooperative, and he had actually demonstrated a genuine desire to have better relations with the US, beginning in 2003 when he gave up his nuclear weapons program and ratted out A. Q. Khan's nuclear smuggling network.

In contrast to the leaders of Iran, the Taliban, Bashar al Assad, and Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi was probably a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Mubarak too - another part-time ally who got under-bussed by the Obama administration.

I am sure that those that would have been slaughtered in civil wars both Libya and Egypt would have been comforted to know that it was being done in the name of keeping the Middle East stable.

 

[lionking]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article89191922.html


Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump has withered to 3 percentage points, signaling their battle for the White House has become too close to call heading into the two major-party national conventions, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, now leads Trump by 42 to 39 percent in a head-to-head matchup. While Republicans and Democrats are solidly behind their candidates, independents are divided, 36 percent for Clinton, 33 percent for Trump – and 23 percent undecided.

The extent of cut and paste in this thread without any commentary (not just this) is infuriating. The essence of this forum, and indeed all forums, is the stating of personal opinions.

 

[jhunter1163]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article89191922.html


Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump has withered to 3 percentage points, signaling their battle for the White House has become too close to call heading into the two major-party national conventions, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, now leads Trump by 42 to 39 percent in a head-to-head matchup. While Republicans and Democrats are solidly behind their candidates, independents are divided, 36 percent for Clinton, 33 percent for Trump – and 23 percent undecided.

Those 23 percent undecided constitute what I call the nose-holder vote; those people who will hold their nose and vote for one of the two major-party candidates. I suspect that the nose-holder vote will break very heavily to Clinton. Trump has alienated too many sectors of the electorate to do well among them.

 

[RobRoy]

Go and read up on it. France and the UK had already announced that they were going to act, and had gathered together a coalition to attack Libya, which included a number of Arab nations and Canada, prior to Clinton meeting with the French President and the Cameron in the days leading to the US agreeing to join. One of the things that convinced her was that the French and the UK had other Arab leaders on board and looked as if they were getting it through the UN Security council without either Russia or China objecting. The French and quite likely the UK had troops on the ground before the US decided to go with them, both of those countries were committed, even if the US said no. [snip]

Well said. A wonderful response and very knowledgeable. I appreciate your view and your insight.

 

[Stacko]

Those 23 percent undecided constitute what I call the nose-holder vote; those people who will hold their nose and vote for one of the two major-party candidates. I suspect that the nose-holder vote will break very heavily to Clinton. Trump has alienated too many sectors of the electorate to do well among them.

You're probably dealing with a sizeable chunk of it's too far out and I haven't started paying attention yet voters too.

 

[dudalb]

I am also cyinical enough to think the press has a vested interest in emphasizing the too close to call polls because they want to keep the horse race aspect going for the sake of ratings.

 

[DavidJames]

I am also cyinical enough to think the press has a vested interest in emphasizing the too close to call polls because they want to keep the horse race aspect going for the sake of ratings.

I agree with this. The media loves a close race.

 

[dudalb]

I agree with this. The media loves a close race.

I can't blame them...it's the nature of the beast....but it needs to be kept in mind.

 

[Fudbucker]

I agree with this. The media loves a close race.

But they can't really make a close race. They can't put pressure on the major polling organizations, and what the polling shows is a pretty tight race. That means it's probably a tight race.

 

[wareyin]

But they can't really make a close race. They can't put pressure on the major polling organizations, and what the polling shows is a pretty tight race. That means it's probably a tight race.

Er, did you read the linked press release? The article was written by the company that sponsored and funded the poll. The poll appears to be an outlier (although not as far out there as Rasmussen!), yet they ran with it. If that isn't making the race appear close, what is?

 

[Fudbucker]

Er, did you read the linked press release? The article was written by the company that sponsored and funded the poll. The poll appears to be an outlier (although not as far out there as Rasmussen!), yet they ran with it. If that isn't making the race appear close, what is?

If the goal is to "make the race close" why would any media company want to cite an outlier poll? If they're interested in a close race, they would ignore outliers.

Except when the outliers are from respective polling forms. You have to publish those, and if they happen to be showing a tight race, which they are, so much the better.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am also cyinical enough to think the press has a vested interest in emphasizing the too close to call polls because they want to keep the horse race aspect going for the sake of ratings.

the CT forum is thataway!

 

[wareyin]

If the goal is to "make the race close" why would any media company want to cite an outlier poll? If they're interested in a close race, they would ignore outliers.

Except when the outliers are from respective polling forms. You have to publish those, and if they happen to be showing a tight race, which they are, so much the better.

This poll, unlike every other poll except Rasmussen, shows a close race. That makes it an outlier. Do you not understand what an outlier is?

This outlier poll was published by the company which paid for it. They got a poll showing a closer race, which no other poll is showing, and they are touting it as significant. This is making the race appear closer than it is in reality. This is why you shouldn't focus on a single poll, but should watch the aggregates.

 

[sunmaster14]

Go and read up on it. France and the UK had already announced that they were going to act, and had gathered together a coalition to attack Libya, which included a number of Arab nations and Canada, prior to Clinton meeting with the French President and the Cameron in the days leading to the US agreeing to join. One of the things that convinced her was that the French and the UK had other Arab leaders on board and looked as if they were getting it through the UN Security council without either Russia or China objecting. The French and quite likely the UK had troops on the ground before the US decided to go with them, both of those countries were committed, even if the US said no.

This is simply a delusional re-interpretation of history. There would have been no military intervention if the UN Security Council hadn't approved a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (which authorizes any member state to use military force to implement the resolution). And the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 wouldn't have passed if the United States hadn't backed it. Your understanding of world diplomacy and your logic is laughably bad.

1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

In doing this the Senate showed that they were willing to back the action in Libya

That had no legal force and was absolutely meaningless anyway without the approval of the House.

Depends on your definition of "going wrong". The action was intended to aid in the removal of Gaddafi. This was achieved. There was no intention of going in on the ground and taking over, that was left up to those living in the country and who were the ones that toppled Gaddafi to do what they thought best.

The worry of things going wrong was not that the rebels would turn out to not be able to organise a party in a brewery, but rather that the UK and French planes might be shot down resulting in the US having to provide military support for them.

They wouldn't have been there but for our approval and encouragement in the first place.

Because the US has to be the first in and calling the shots every time?

We don't have to be first in, but we do call the shots. Qaddafi might still be there if we had been willing to tolerate his existence.

I am sure that those that would have been slaughtered in civil wars both Libya and Egypt would have been comforted to know that it was being done in the name of keeping the Middle East stable.

It is quite possible more have died because of our intervention than without it. The counterfactual is unknown, although we can guess. My guess is that both Egypt and Libya, and we, would have been better off if we had maintained the status quo.

 

[Travis]

The media spins things to keep us watching. I mean the FBI says "nothing wrong with those e-mails" and everyone talks about how it was "terrible" for Hillary anyways. Logic be damned!

 

[Foolmewunz]

If the goal is to "make the race close" why would any media company want to cite an outlier poll? If they're interested in a close race, they would ignore outliers.

Except when the outliers are from respective polling forms. You have to publish those, and if they happen to be showing a tight race, which they are, so much the better.

If you give an outlier equal weight and take averages, you make the race appear close. Take a look at the current RCP average. If you include Rasmussen, Clinton's currently ahead by 4.3 in the average. If you toss it out, she's ahead by 5.1 Not a huge difference but it does effectively tighten the race.

 

[Fudbucker]

If you give an outlier equal weight and take averages, you make the race appear close. Take a look at the current RCP average. If you include Rasmussen, Clinton's currently ahead by 4.3 in the average. If you toss it out, she's ahead by 5.1 Not a huge difference but it does effectively tighten the race.

I'd really like to see a series of post-email-scandal polls. The couple of polls that have been released post-email show a tight race with Hillarly with a small lead.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'd really like to see a series of post-email-scandal polls. The couple of polls that have been released post-email show a tight race with Hillarly with a small lead.

There are a number of polls since this brouhaha and the round-the-clock demands for new charges, new hearings, censure, etc... started. But they're not conclusive. Polls taken during and after are still coming through and they're getting muddied with pre-convention polls.

Overall, the sentiment seems to be that those on the right who hate Hillary are more convinced than ever, but they're not attracting any new votes. This may be why the prosecution-supporters have STFU. They know they're not making any impact.

If the convention season holds to historical tendencies, Trump will have a bump carrying over from the FBI/Justice spat and through the convention. Hillary will rebound almost immediately as her convention is a scant week later. First polls to really start telling the tale of the tape will be around August 5 to 11.