As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Think I've responded to this a couple times, but will do so again. I work in cybersecurity as a contractor for the Department of Defense at a pretty in-depth level with systems that have information roughly equivalent to the information she was dealing with.
So the argument for indicting her and why she's such a bad criminal has evolved from "it was criminal to house the emails on her own server" to the latest above.
1) The housing her emails on her own server was dumb and negligent. Of this there is no doubt, and she knew better. Is it criminal? The answer is yes, you could probably find a law it breaks. But if this happened to someone other than the Secretary of State, the punishment could be anything from a slap on the wrist to them losing their job. No one goes to prison over this kind of thing. I've been a part of data breaches at that level. It happens, you deal with it and move on.
2) Having people delete her emails: So this is a newer revelation, and it's more grey. This is again an indication of really bad judgement and a fear that she had something to cover up. Is it criminal? It's probably the same as above, technically yes but no one sees jail time for it. In 33,000 emails you're talking about 20 or so with "Classified" material.
It's worth noting that I don't know of anything that can be truly permanently deleted from the user side. The FBI were able to retrieve those emails and read them.
Hillary Clinton lied in her public discussions of the matter, but importantly she didn't lie to the FBI. THAT would be a crime, and one that you see punished far, far, far more frequently than any of the above.
It's also worth noting that the head of the FBI is a lifelong Republican.
The whole thing is a concerted effort by people on the Republican side of things to discredit her in an election year. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth in their arguments, but it is SO frustrating that everyone thinks they're a cybersecurity expert overnight. You have no idea what goes in to constructing and managing this type of stuff, and in the grand scheme of things, this is so small compared to things I see on a daily basis.
I'm waiting for Limeygent's 'friend' (and indeed him also) to express outrage at a Presidential candidate openly encouraging Russia to spy on his political opponents and provide the emails to the media for financial reward. As Limeygent would say: "Incredible."
Surely the most outrageous part of this is that Hillary had an unsecure, private server to store top secret info for "convenience", ignored all protocols and thus allowed sensitive government information to potentially fall into the wrong hands.
As I've said before, a lot of people will be holding their noses when they vote, on both sides of the aisle, and had either party nominated a less controversial candidate it would be no contest. The person I quoted is real, and none of my dealings with her have ever suggested that she had particularly strong political leanings. The FBI should have indicted Hillary, as they would have any of the rest of us. There should be no difficulty researching why. I'm always surprised by the anger expressed on this forum when anybody suggests a political point of view other than that of the "left of centers", I have taken to avoiding putting myself in the middle of the discussions as much as I can, as there seems to be far fewer of us who are "right of center", and none of us are as vehement when expressing our views. It's often "just not worth it". I don't know why there can't be discussion, rather than angry "put-downs." We are, after all, of the same community, and have our football club's woes in common.
What's the crime for which Hillary should have been indicted? And why wasn't she?
The crime was allowing her subordinates, who didn't have the proper level of security clearance, to go through her emails, some of which were "top-secret". Roughly equivalent to breaching the O.S.A. She wasn'y indicted because the Attorney General is a Democrat, and likely to be retained if Clinton is elected President. Bill Clinton met the Attorney General a couple of days before, on an airport runway, "to discuss their grandchildren":. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/07/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james-comey-about-hillary-clinton/
Apart from "because I'm a Democrat", were there any other reasons the Attorney General decided against indicting her?
Suggest you read the post again.
Suggest you answer the question, if you can. Because your post didn't answer it.
I would appreciate it if you can explain why - apart from the silly "because the Attorney General is a Democrat" answer - the Attorney General chose not to indict. Do you know?
I don't think there is any doubt that her use of her own server was a security issue. But she made no secret of the fact that she was using a private server. And she has provided valid reasons for wanting to do so. She never attempted to hide the fact. What astonishes me is that the career government security experts employed to look after the State departments IT and communications did not on day one tell her no, she could not use her own server.
This is maddeningly and willfully taken out of context: 1) in his speech today, Trump said he hoped that the Russians had hacked the DNC emails (which are discussed a couple pages back on this thread) and the 33k emails which she deleted from the servers (there are two sets of emails here).
2) The press release is referring to both of these sets of emails.
3) REGARDLESS of the content of the emails, a foreign government hacking emails is, UNTO ITSELF, a national security issue, particularly when it's in an attempt to sway an election. This is what the statement refers to. This applies to both the DNC and local server hosted emails. We know, we literally do it all the time. Go back to the Manning WikiLeaks, we're awesome at spying on everyone. And that rightfully pissed them off.
If the people at the Conservative "The Federalist" don't understand that it's a national security issue for someone to be hacking the emails of a presidential candidate, then they shouldn't be writing about politics. If they do, it's willful manipulation.
@Stu_of_Kunming this is the "Truthiness" I spoke of in my response to your post. It's not facts that matter, it's not context. It's perception and feeling and spinning a narrative. By no means is this unique at all, either to Trump in this election or in this election period. But we're getting into some grown up shit here and playing with fire when we talk about cybersecurity integrity being compromised by foreign agents.
The fact that we have a presidential candidate saying he hopes the Russians, a contentious international country at the best of times, hacks his opponents emails is stupid and appalling. And I am on the record all over this thread of not being appalled or surprised by this man.
Brilliant!!! Could lightning strike twice? Will "the racists win" (eyes rolling emoji) like in brexit or will the one's who shout louder this time prevail.
It's hard to imagine that you can't figure it out for yourself.
If you don't know, just say. I take a passing interest in US politics, so I don't have the advantage of knowing precisely why any legal action against a candidate has or hasn't taken place.
I assume that the Attorney General has given a reason for not indicting Hillary Clinton. If so, what is it?
I don't think there is any doubt that her use of her own server was a security issue. But she made no secret of the fact that she was using a private server. And she has provided valid reasons for wanting to do so. She never attempted to hide the fact. What astonishes me is that the career government security experts employed to look after the State departments IT and communications did not on day one tell her no, she could not use her own server.
Maybe they didn't want to end up like Vince Foster Good question, no idea
But as a result of the furore created by that meeting she decided to publicly announce she would fully accept the FBI recommendations whatever they were. She removed herself from having anything to do with the decision on whether to prosecute Clinton or not.
I don't think there is any doubt that her use of her own server was a security issue. But she made no secret of the fact that she was using a private server. And she has provided valid reasons for wanting to do so. She never attempted to hide the fact. What astonishes me is that the career government security experts employed to look after the State departments IT and communications did not on day one tell her no, she could not use her own server.
I believe they did tell her on day one and she did it anyway. That doesn't make it an indictable crime (see above), but it makes it gross negligence on her part.
Without getting too wonky, it's very concerning that there isn't any internal monitoring of the email traffic within the Dept. of State. As someone that works for the Federal Govt., it's not particularly surprising, but it is concerning. You would not, for example, be able to do this with DoD emails.
I don't see how you can dismiss what she did in the 60s and 70s. She actually worked to seek out, highlight and correct injustices. She did not simply talk about it or write about it like most of us on this forum. She went out and actually did things to make disadvantaged peoples' lives better. She did not care where her actions could be located on the childish, and completely irrelevant in today's world, Left - Right spectrum or what equally irrelevant and outdated slogans and labels could be applied to those actions. These empty and meaningless labels and slogans are the opiate of today's Sanders and Corbyn supporters who think the world is the same one their baby boomer parents protested against in the 60s.
You're right, it's not fair. My frustration is more with the narrative (not unique to her) of "look how progressive she is because she was progressive in her 20s." The work she has done in the past is very good, and can not and should not be taken away from her.
She is not closely aligned with the big banks. That is another manufactured falsehood.
Many people supported the Iraq war. I did. With hindsight it was wrong.
Like many people 20 odd years ago she was not fully supportive of LGTBQ rights. The world has moved on and so has she. Nobody could make the case that she does not genuinely support these rights today.
She supported the USA PATRIOT Act. This is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Quite frankly, the way Islamic terrorism is spreading across Europe and the USA I don't see how anyone can argue against providing the people whose job it is to protect us with all the tools necessary to do so and I am not interested in Liberals protesting about their civil liberties being affected by providing those tools.
So what the PATRIOT act did was not just make domstic spying easier in the wake of 9/11 (and I won't argue that, I understand why that was a knee-jerk reaction. I could probably make a case that it hasn't work and has had a snowball effect, but that would be a hindsight is 20/20 argument). The problem is that it removed any pretense of oversight on such matters, and that is a violation of the constitution amongst other things. We are now in a world where FISA courts rubber-stamp everything without evidence needing to particularly be disclosed.
Again with hindsight you could claim the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act was wrong. But the argument that ithe repeal caused the 2008 crash has not been proven.
I would not say it was the sole cause, there's never a sole cause for such crashes. I believe there are a handful of factors that play a larger role than others. First and foremost is the culture of greed. But I would put high on the list the unwillingness of the FED and Greenspan in particular to realize this, along with the repeal of the Glass-Steagle act, and some other factors (predatory lending chief amongst them).
The criminal act and mandatory sentencing introduced by her husband that you refer to was voted for by Bernie Sanders in 1994. She has defended it in the past but she now says many aspects did not work and were wrong.
I admittedly cherrypicked a couple things here, mostly because I wanted to give credit to the fact that her work when she was younger cannot be taken away from her, particularly by some schmuck on the internet. That's a good point, I was being hyperbolic when I said "I don't care what she did..."
I don't think there is any doubt that her use of her own server was a security issue. But she made no secret of the fact that she was using a private server. And she has provided valid reasons for wanting to do so. She never attempted to hide the fact. What astonishes me is that the career government security experts employed to look after the State departments IT and communications did not on day one tell her no, she could not use her own server.
I believe they did tell her on day one and she did it anyway. That doesn't make it an indictable crime (see above), but it makes it gross negligence on her part.
Without getting too wonky, it's very concerning that there isn't any internal monitoring of the email traffic within the Dept. of State. As someone that works for the Federal Govt., it's not particularly surprising, but it is concerning. You would not, for example, be able to do this with DoD emails.
So, the security experts told her she couldn't use a private server but she decided to anyway. So the security experts concluded that, well, they have done their job in telling her not to use the private server so it was no longer their concern that she continued to do so. I would conclude that those security experts were as useful as a chocolate teapot.
I don't think there is any doubt that her use of her own server was a security issue. But she made no secret of the fact that she was using a private server. And she has provided valid reasons for wanting to do so. She never attempted to hide the fact. What astonishes me is that the career government security experts employed to look after the State departments IT and communications did not on day one tell her no, she could not use her own server.
I believe they did tell her on day one and she did it anyway. That doesn't make it an indictable crime (see above), but it makes it gross negligence on her part.
Without getting too wonky, it's very concerning that there isn't any internal monitoring of the email traffic within the Dept. of State. As someone that works for the Federal Govt., it's not particularly surprising, but it is concerning. You would not, for example, be able to do this with DoD emails.
So, the security experts told her she couldn't use a private server but she decided to anyway. So the security experts concluded that, well, they have done their job in telling her not to use the private server so it was no longer their concern that she continued to do so. I would conclude that those security experts were as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Honestly, I don't know what the introduction process is like at State, I've only done it for DoD standards. My point was if she had followed the rules and/or used her best judgement, she wouldn't have done what she did.
As far as the people running security over there telling her but not monitoring things, yeah as I said in my post I agree. That said, you never know what kind of funding, legacy systems, priorities are placed on things in the Government. As I said there should be server monitoring, but just because there isn't doesn't make their security people useless. This is one that I run into a lot, it's very easy to blame civil servants, but you have to understand that sometimes they are working with one (or both) hands tied behind their backs.
But as a result of the furore created by that meeting she decided to publicly announce she would fully accept the FBI recommendations whatever they were. She removed herself from having anything to do with the decision on whether to prosecute Clinton or not.
Messing with the Clintons in Washington is career suicide.
But as a result of the furore created by that meeting she decided to publicly announce she would fully accept the FBI recommendations whatever they were. She removed herself from having anything to do with the decision on whether to prosecute Clinton or not.
Messing with the Clintons in Washington is career suicide.
Wrong.
Who was that bloke who ran against Clinton in 2008? Becoming POTUS is not career suicide last time I checked.
A huge number of senior Democratic Senators, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Claire McAskill, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and dozens of others supported Obama over Clinton while the race was still alive in 2007/08.
This notion that the Clinton's are some kind of all-powerful, all-seeing and all-conquering couple is utter bullshit.
Everyone knew Hillary was going to run for POTUS in 2008, if people are so terrified of the Clinton's then surely that would scare off all other challengers, right?
Er, not really, the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008 attracted the highest number of candidates to ever contest a Primary (until the GOP's clusterfuck this year) with eight candidates contesting the Primary.
In fact, if the Clinton's are so all powerful then how the fuck did she lose the 2008 Primary to a first-term Senator? Not just any first term Senator either, a black guy, with big ears, a funny name and a Muslim father.
Like most GOP conspiracy theories this is yet more unexpurgated sewage.
But as a result of the furore created by that meeting she decided to publicly announce she would fully accept the FBI recommendations whatever they were. She removed herself from having anything to do with the decision on whether to prosecute Clinton or not.
Messing with the Clintons in Washington is career suicide.
Wrong.
Who was that bloke who ran against Clinton in 2008? Becoming POTUS is not career suicide last time I checked.
A huge number of senior Democratic Senators, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Claire McAskill, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and dozens of others supported Obama over Clinton while the race was still alive in 2007/08.
This notion that the Clinton's are some kind of all-powerful, all-seeing and all-conquering couple is utter bullshit.
Everyone knew Hillary was going to run for POTUS in 2008, if people are so terrified of the Clinton's then surely that would scare off all other challengers, right?
Er, not really, the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008 attracted the highest number of candidates to ever contest a Primary (until the GOP's clusterfuck this year) with eight candidates contesting the Primary.
In fact, if the Clinton's are so all powerful then how the fuck did she lose the 2008 Primary to a first-term Senator? Not just any first term Senator either, a black guy, with big ears, a funny name and a Muslim father.
Like most GOP conspiracy theories this is yet more unexpurgated sewage.
You got a "LOL" because of your many sharp rhetorical question, and also because of these lines, which are funny and sad and funny on many levels because if you look at the last two Presidents and the way they've aged, it looks a miserable job. To be fair, just about every President in the last one-hundred years has had their career ended by the Presidency, with the exception of Taft (became Supreme Court Justice) and Jimmy Carter--who for all his failing as a president has done nothing but build houses and eradicated Guinea Worm since leaving office.
But you are right, the Clinton machine isn't what it once was. There are a lot of people who are loyal to the Clintons, but I've pointed this out as being part of how a political party works (fundraising, campaigning, etc) more than them as individuals.
After his speech tonight, and in the light of his rapidly improving approval ratings, Hillary should lock Bill in the cupboard for the next six months and send the President out on the campaign trail every second she can.
Comments
So the argument for indicting her and why she's such a bad criminal has evolved from "it was criminal to house the emails on her own server" to the latest above.
1) The housing her emails on her own server was dumb and negligent. Of this there is no doubt, and she knew better. Is it criminal? The answer is yes, you could probably find a law it breaks. But if this happened to someone other than the Secretary of State, the punishment could be anything from a slap on the wrist to them losing their job. No one goes to prison over this kind of thing. I've been a part of data breaches at that level. It happens, you deal with it and move on.
2) Having people delete her emails: So this is a newer revelation, and it's more grey. This is again an indication of really bad judgement and a fear that she had something to cover up. Is it criminal? It's probably the same as above, technically yes but no one sees jail time for it. In 33,000 emails you're talking about 20 or so with "Classified" material.
It's worth noting that I don't know of anything that can be truly permanently deleted from the user side. The FBI were able to retrieve those emails and read them.
Hillary Clinton lied in her public discussions of the matter, but importantly she didn't lie to the FBI. THAT would be a crime, and one that you see punished far, far, far more frequently than any of the above.
It's also worth noting that the head of the FBI is a lifelong Republican.
The whole thing is a concerted effort by people on the Republican side of things to discredit her in an election year. That doesn't mean there isn't some truth in their arguments, but it is SO frustrating that everyone thinks they're a cybersecurity expert overnight. You have no idea what goes in to constructing and managing this type of stuff, and in the grand scheme of things, this is so small compared to things I see on a daily basis.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/democratic-convention-dnc-emails-russia/
I would appreciate it if you can explain why - apart from the silly "because the Attorney General is a Democrat" answer - the Attorney General chose not to indict. Do you know?
1) in his speech today, Trump said he hoped that the Russians had hacked the DNC emails (which are discussed a couple pages back on this thread) and the 33k emails which she deleted from the servers (there are two sets of emails here).
2) The press release is referring to both of these sets of emails.
3) REGARDLESS of the content of the emails, a foreign government hacking emails is, UNTO ITSELF, a national security issue, particularly when it's in an attempt to sway an election. This is what the statement refers to. This applies to both the DNC and local server hosted emails. We know, we literally do it all the time. Go back to the Manning WikiLeaks, we're awesome at spying on everyone. And that rightfully pissed them off.
If the people at the Conservative "The Federalist" don't understand that it's a national security issue for someone to be hacking the emails of a presidential candidate, then they shouldn't be writing about politics. If they do, it's willful manipulation.
@Stu_of_Kunming this is the "Truthiness" I spoke of in my response to your post. It's not facts that matter, it's not context. It's perception and feeling and spinning a narrative. By no means is this unique at all, either to Trump in this election or in this election period. But we're getting into some grown up shit here and playing with fire when we talk about cybersecurity integrity being compromised by foreign agents.
The fact that we have a presidential candidate saying he hopes the Russians, a contentious international country at the best of times, hacks his opponents emails is stupid and appalling. And I am on the record all over this thread of not being appalled or surprised by this man.
I assume that the Attorney General has given a reason for not indicting Hillary Clinton. If so, what is it?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/
Maybe they didn't want to end up like Vince FosterGood question, no ideaWithout getting too wonky, it's very concerning that there isn't any internal monitoring of the email traffic within the Dept. of State. As someone that works for the Federal Govt., it's not particularly surprising, but it is concerning. You would not, for example, be able to do this with DoD emails.
Only on charlton life could you have two political threads that have the same people experts in at the same time
Whilst palace sites are heavily influenced by kids ours are heavily influenced by politicians pretending to be football fans I reckon
As far as the people running security over there telling her but not monitoring things, yeah as I said in my post I agree. That said, you never know what kind of funding, legacy systems, priorities are placed on things in the Government. As I said there should be server monitoring, but just because there isn't doesn't make their security people useless. This is one that I run into a lot, it's very easy to blame civil servants, but you have to understand that sometimes they are working with one (or both) hands tied behind their backs.
And no I'm not talking about this:
Who was that bloke who ran against Clinton in 2008? Becoming POTUS is not career suicide last time I checked.
A huge number of senior Democratic Senators, Dick Durbin, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Claire McAskill, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and dozens of others supported Obama over Clinton while the race was still alive in 2007/08.
This notion that the Clinton's are some kind of all-powerful, all-seeing and all-conquering couple is utter bullshit.
Everyone knew Hillary was going to run for POTUS in 2008, if people are so terrified of the Clinton's then surely that would scare off all other challengers, right?
Er, not really, the Democratic Presidential Primary in 2008 attracted the highest number of candidates to ever contest a Primary (until the GOP's clusterfuck this year) with eight candidates contesting the Primary.
In fact, if the Clinton's are so all powerful then how the fuck did she lose the 2008 Primary to a first-term Senator? Not just any first term Senator either, a black guy, with big ears, a funny name and a Muslim father.
Like most GOP conspiracy theories this is yet more unexpurgated sewage.
But you are right, the Clinton machine isn't what it once was. There are a lot of people who are loyal to the Clintons, but I've pointed this out as being part of how a political party works (fundraising, campaigning, etc) more than them as individuals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/21/dont-look-now-but-barack-obama-is-suddenly-popular/
Raul, Raul, Pablo, Carlos,Mario, Eduardo,Jose.
Build the Wall, build the wall For Trumpton.
The part about the BLM guy plugging his ears with his fingers, there's plenty of those types on here.