Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[TheL8Elvis]

What was the topic of this thread again ????

 

[Darat]

You may not remember but there was a politician called Hillary Clinton. Several members correctly predicted that she would be done months and months ago and would be in prison or awaiting trial right now. Have to say hats off to those members for not crowing about how right they were!

 

[The Don]

You may not remember but there was a politician called Hillary Clinton. Several members correctly predicted that she would be done months and months ago and would be in prison or awaiting trial right now. Have to say hats off to those members for not crowing about how right they were!

To be fair Darat, you and/or your minions banned the OP so he couldn't even if he wanted to

 

[Travis]

Sure it was, it was already a just-barely-not-boiling kettle pot of sectarian conflict under Saddam. Remove Saddam and you get full-blown insurrection and civil war, which was more than obvious enough beforehand. And no, not disbanding the military or police force would not have changed this, it would just have provided the insurrection and sectarian groups with more resources. The military or police were not immune to sectarianism after all.

None of that sectarian violence blew up until after the military was disbanded.

If it was done right there would never have been an insurrection.

 

[Minoosh]

Is the Fox viewership tired of The Nightly Trump Show? Or have they just outgrown Mr. Nutsy.

Mr. Nutsy would be Hannity? I would use a different nickname.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's a very good diary by Skeptical Raptor about this over on Daily Kos.

Quick summary: the medical authority behind the story is Jane Orient, head of the right-wing medical propaganda group AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons), and it's based on a blog post Orient wrote in which she diagnosed Clinton based on pictures and videos she saw on the internet.

I remember that faux organization from a long time ago, can't remember the discussion but I recall finding the group with a legit sounding name was anything but. They also publish a journal that bad medicine pushers use to claim their study is published in a peer reviewed journal.

They have updated their webpage (or maybe someone else took over the domain name).

 

[kookbreaker]

I am reminded of that Doctor (who was a radiologist) who declared that Terry Schiavo's head x-Ray wasn't that bad and she therefore was fully functional. Some research showed e also declared that Bill Clinton had AIDS or cancer by comparing a recent candid shot in harsh sunlight with a portrait photo done while he was in office. Yeah....

 

[catsmate]

Curiously the Republicans and their fellow travellers, while obsessed with Secretary Clinton's mailserver, are paying no attention to the recent revelations about the involvement of former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Who apparantly advised her to use a private server for non-classified emails.
AP.
NYT.

 

[Nova Land]

Colin Powell ... apparantly advised her to use a private server for non-classified emails.
AP.
NYT.

No, he didn't. He told her about (and recommended the use of) a private e-mail account. He did not tell her about (or recommend the use of) a private server -- at least not according to either of the sources you cited.

It's an easy mistake to make, and a number of other people have made the same mistake in the past in discussing this issue. But private e-mail account and private server are two very different things.

 

[Nova Land]

I remember that faux organization from a long time ago, can't remember the discussion but I recall finding the group with a legit sounding name was anything but. They also publish a journal that bad medicine pushers use to claim their study is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Yes. Jane Orient and the AAPS are badly biased and unreliable sources.

But even if Jane Orient had no history of being biased and unreliable, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that a diagnosis of someone's health based on videos posted on the internet is of little to no value.

An important part of skepticism is weighing the evidence which is presented. Orient's diagnosis, while entertaining, should carry little to no weight to anyone interested in figuring out what's true rather than in figuring out how to tear down someone they oppose.

 

[Tero]

Judicial Watch right wingers still yapping and biting at Hillary's heels. She has till 30 days after the election to answer their questions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/19/no-deposition-clinton-judicial-watch-email-suit/

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, he didn't. He told her about (and recommended the use of) a private e-mail account. He did not tell her about (or recommend the use of) a private server -- at least not according to either of the sources you cited.

It's an easy mistake to make, and a number of other people have made the same mistake in the past in discussing this issue. But private e-mail account and private server are two very different things.

You mean he used a government-owned email server for his private e-mail account ?

Because he didn't use a private server, right ?

 

[Nova Land]

You mean he used a government-owned email server for his private e-mail account ?

Because he didn't use a private server, right ?

There was at least one scandal during the Bush administration when it was discovered that a number of Republican officials were using a private server run by the RNC rather than the government server. Many of the e-mails were deleted before they could be examined to see if anything improper were contained in them. I don't remember if Colin Powell was one of the officials involved in that, although it's quite possible he was.

Since I don't recall the details of that scandal, and don't have time to be looking up those details at the moment, I did not attempt to address that.

What I did address was the error in catsmate's post. Whether Colin Powell used a private server or not, he did not recommend to Hillary Clinton that she should do so. But according to the sources catsmate cited Powell did recommend the use of a private e-mail account to her.

The use of private e-mail accounts and the use of private servers are separate matters, so I think it's worth keeping the facts straight regarding what Powell did and did not say to Clinton.

Regarding private e-mail accounts, Hillary Clinton has said she used a private e-mail account because handling her e-mail that way was simpler for her. I'm inclined to believe that's true since so many other government officials such as Powell have done that in the past and (it's my impression) so many other government officials continue to do that today.

One way Republicans could demonstrate that their investigation of Clinton over the way she handled e-mails is being done out of genuine concern rather than for partisan reasons would be for Republicans holding government positions to voluntarily stop using private e-mail accounts themselves.

In the past many Republican governors (as well as senators and representatives) have used private e-mail accounts. They are legally allowed to, or so I understand, because they are not covered by the same record-keeping regulations and laws as cabinet members.

It would go a long way toward convincing me that Republicans are sincere in their concern over how Clinton handled her e-mails if Republican governors and other officials were to say something like this:

Yes, I'm legally permitted to use private e-mail accounts. But I think it's too possible for people to use private e-mail in order to conceal from the public things they have no right to conceal. Since I think it's wrong for others to use a private e-mail account this way, I have made it a point that I and everyone else in my administration will only use government accounts and government servers when doing anything related to my office​

It would also go a long way toward convincing me that Republicans are sincere in their concern over how Clinton handled her e-mails if they were inquiring into which governors and other officials are using private e-mail accounts, demanding straight answers, and putting pressure on any governor, senator or congressperson using a private account to stop doing so.

Unfortunately this is an aspect of the story which the media has, in my opinion, done an inadequate job of covering. I have not heard or read of any Republican official who has said anything like that, and my belief is that a number of Republican governors are still using private e-mail accounts and feel perfectly justified in doing so. But I have not seen any news story which spells that out clearly or which identifies which governors do still use private e-mail accounts and which ones don't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Powell used AOL. Clinton used her own server. Given the rapid changes occurring with the Internet at the time, I fail to see the issue. Difference, yes, but issue, no.

Powell used the State Department system for confidential information, Clinton did as well, using faxes for confidential information, presumably on a secure fax system.

Come on folks, are we to believe Clinton only had a hundred or so confidential message exchanges in her tenure? Seriously?

Obviously she used some alternative system for confidential message exchanges. Are we faulting her for 100 or so mistaken (or difference of opinion) transmissions in all that time?

The fact she used a private server is a red herring. Surely AOL is not any more secure than a private server.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
The use of private e-mail accounts and the use of private servers are separate matters, so I think it's worth keeping the facts straight regarding what Powell did and did not say to Clinton.
<>.

Thanks for the long reply. I kept the part that addresses my post.

I was hoping you might address what you believe is the substantive difference between colin powells private email server and hillary clintons private email server.

I keep hearing this emphasis regarding "private" email server and I have yet to see someone explain to me how AOLs email servers are somehow less private that clintons, and why people keep emphasizing "private." IMO, it's simply a distraction, and irrelevant. She either used a government email account/server or she didn't.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The use of private e-mail accounts and the use of private servers are separate matters, so I think it's worth keeping the facts straight regarding what Powell did and did not say to Clinton.


...snip...

I think it is a valid distinction but only to those that already understand the distinction. I would be very surprised if the majority of the population would be able to tell what the difference between the two actually is.

Given that I would not be surprised if as far as Clinton was aware they are the same thing. I can well see her telling her staff "I was talking to Colin and he said I should use a private email, can you set that up please." And then as far as she was concerned that is what was set up.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think it is a valid distinction but only to those that already understand the distinction. I would be very surprised if the majority of the population would be able to tell what the difference between the two actually is.

Given that I would not be surprised if as far as Clinton was aware they are the same thing. I can well see her telling her staff "I was talking to Colin and he said I should use a private email, can you set that up please." And then as far as she was concerned that is what was set up.

Hilited: This, to me, passes the "reasonable person" test. All of the arguments over the past year from the Hang-the-Witch crowd are based on the opposite assumption - that she was a State or Diplomatic "pro" and should absolutely have known the wording of the three or four rules that she possibly breached/abused and should have had written consultation from John Jay, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Learned Hand to support her decision.

My contention all along is that there is SOMETHING there worth looking at; updating the regulations and standardizing them for all branches of the government, particularly with regards to updating them to reflect the new mobility. In 2008, my employer was still dealing with issues of securing communications and there was little trust of anything outside of our closed system. Things have changed radically since then. The regs haven't, really.

But that would be a non-partisan discussion and it's far too sensible. This is an elongated gotcha.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Powell used AOL. Clinton used her own server. Given the rapid changes occurring with the Internet at the time, I fail to see the issue. Difference, yes, but issue, no.

Powell used the State Department system for confidential information, Clinton did as well, using faxes for confidential information, presumably on a secure fax system.

Come on folks, are we to believe Clinton only had a hundred or so confidential message exchanges in her tenure? Seriously?

Obviously she used some alternative system for confidential message exchanges. Are we faulting her for 100 or so mistaken (or difference of opinion) transmissions in all that time?

The fact she used a private server is a red herring. Surely AOL is not any more secure than a private server.

Technical terms Nitpick:

The correct word is Classified. Information may be classified as Confidential, Secret or Top Secret, with and without information compartmentalization caveats and code words. Industrial and commercial secrets and interpersonal communications are referred to as "confidential" , little c, with zero relationship to government classification standards.

 

[Nova Land]

Thanks for the long reply. I kept the part that addresses my post.

I was hoping you might address what you believe is the substantive difference between colin powells private email server and hillary clintons private email server.

I keep hearing this emphasis regarding "private" email server and I have yet to see someone explain to me how AOLs email servers are somehow less private that clintons, and why people keep emphasizing "private." IMO, it's simply a distraction, and irrelevant. She either used a government email account/server or she didn't.

My apologies for not addressing that sooner. It wasn't clear to me from your original post what it was you were asking me to respond to.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about computer stuff, nor am I particularly knowledgeable about the fine details of Powell's (or Clinton's) e-mail practices, so my impression of the differences between what Powell did and what Clinton did may be totally off. But here's my take on the "private server" situation.

First, we have the government servers -- servers maintained by the government for government people to use. That, ideally, is what government people would use, both for the record-keeping purposes and transparency purposes. Unfortunately it's not an ideal world. Enough government people of both parties have chosen to use alternatives to government servers and I don't think all of them were doing so for nefarious purposes (although I am suspicious of the people such as Karl Rove who were using RNC e-mail accounts on an RNC server back during the Bush administration) that I'm willing to believe using the government servers can present problems and that folks simply trying to do their jobs have used non-government servers for non-nefarious reasons.

Second we have private servers, but I think that's too broad a category and that we need to break that down a bit. On one hand we have servers owned and run by third parties, especially companies which make a business of providing internet service; and on another hand we have servers owned and run by people connected to the government folks using the servers.

If using government servers isn't as simple and easy for government folks as it should be and they prefer to use a different server, I don't see anything terribly suspicious or problematic with their using one run by a phone company (which I think is what I've got) or by AOL (which you say is what Powell used) or Yahoo or Google. I do have a problem with the Republican officials under Bush using a server owned and run by the RNC, which certainly presents the appearance of something improper going on even if nothing improper was intended.

Perhaps we could refer to the first kind of private servers as third-party servers and the second kind as personal servers. Powell, if I understand correctly, used a third-party server; Clinton used a personal server.

I think Clinton's choice to set up and use her own personal server was a poor one, especially in light of the stink the Republican use of the RNC server had caused. But people, even politicians, often make bad choices. I think Darat's explanation of how Clinton could have made this particular bad choice is quite plausible.

I'm neither trying to defend Clinton nor to attack Clinton in this matter because I simply don't know enough about computers, about government record-keeping, and about the details of the case. The flimsy evidence and flimsy arguments used by those attacking Clinton in this matter incline me to believe she did not intentionally do anything wrong (because if she had they should be able to present sound evidence and arguments instead of hyperbolic rhetoric and Hannity-level talking points) but my main reason for popping into this discussion was simply to correct a small factual point related to what catsmate posted.

 

[Fudbucker]

Hilited: This, to me, passes the "reasonable person" test. All of the arguments over the past year from the Hang-the-Witch crowd are based on the opposite assumption - that she was a State or Diplomatic "pro" and should absolutely have known the wording of the three or four rules that she possibly breached/abused and should have had written consultation from John Jay, Oliver Wendell Holmes and Learned Hand to support her decision.

My contention all along is that there is SOMETHING there worth looking at; updating the regulations and standardizing them for all branches of the government, particularly with regards to updating them to reflect the new mobility. In 2008, my employer was still dealing with issues of securing communications and there was little trust of anything outside of our closed system. Things have changed radically since then. The regs haven't, really.

But that would be a non-partisan discussion and it's far too sensible. This is an elongated gotcha.

A reasonable person would have done what previous SoS's have done when they didn't want to use govt. email: create an email account using one of the various companies that specialize in emails: AOL, Google, etc. It would have taken Clinton two minutes to set up a Gmail account. Why did she want a private server for her non-government emails? No one else in her position has ever done that before.