Hello Joe

My bold prediction is that Hillary will not be the nominee. She is too poor a candidate with too much baggage. She certainly acted unethically with her email and the Clinton Foundation and maybe illegally. She cannot get out from under her behavior. My forecast is that she will develop a “health problem” sometime between March and June and be unable to continue. This health problem may have real roots, since she is old and tired compared to younger candidates and even compared to Bernie. So what’s next?

I don't think the Democrats can nominate a socialist and Americans would not elect one. Bernie cannot get free of his socialist past no matter how hard he tries to reframe socialism as merely wanting to fix roads and maintain a fire department. So who is left? Biden.

Biden is broadly acceptable to Democrats and the middle of the road Americans. And nobody hates Biden, as they do Clinton. I am not saying his way will be easy, but Biden has, IMO, a better chance of being president than does Hillary.

Posted by Christine & John at January 25, 2016 12:01 PM
Comments
Comment #402149

C/J, I agree with your assessment of the Clinton campaign, but not your conclusion regarding Biden.

From what I read and hear, I believe the Dems will actually nominate Sanders. His popularity stems mainly from the same dissent that is propelling both Trump and Cruz.

While Sanders has had a 20 year run as both a senator and congressman from Vermont, he is not considered an insider by his supporters.

He is loved by the Left for many of the same reasons McGovern was. And, he will lose the election to Trump or Cruz for many of the same reasons McGovern lost.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2016 3:36 PM
Comment #402150

Royal

They are not dumb enough to nominate him. If Hillary represents the past, Sanders is the deep past, maybe the 1930s. Beyond that, Sanders threatens many Democratic constituencies.

But this is an odd year. After Hillary, maybe Sanders. Consider Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. They “had no chance” just before they did.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 3:49 PM
Comment #402151

“They are not dumb enough to nominate him (Sanders).”

I believe it was Einstein who said; “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2016 3:55 PM
Comment #402152

I expect Hillary Clinton to get the nomination as the Democrat candidate but Bernie Sanders seems to be giving her a run for the money, a good one too. As I stated months ago, the Democrat convention will use ideas from both of these candidates and other input to build the party platform, no matter who the nominee is.

Conservatives and Republicans must have some super, duper extra special crystal ball to be able to make such predictions, I would not. But that didn’t stop you in ‘08 or ‘12 so I don’t expect you would stop this time. How many times do you have to be wrong in order to see that these predictions seem to be born of your fears of losing something rather than astute political observation?

If Sanders is nominated I will vote for him as there are no better alternatives out there and I am intrigued by his direction. Right now Mrs. Clinton seems to be holding her own and I will vote for her if she is the nominee for the same reason. I do like the civility being displayed by Clinton and Sanders although they are both trying to delineate their differences to the voting public, so it won’t be easy to walk that line. It is a welcome change from what I have been observing from the Republican candidates.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 25, 2016 3:55 PM
Comment #402153

Speaks writes he is “intrigued” by Sanders brand of Socialism. How could anyone have imagined that? Scratch a Leftie and you’ll find a failed “ism”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2016 4:03 PM
Comment #402154

Speaks

Hillary is in serious trouble with that email. She violated ethics and probably broke the law.

If you have a security clearance, you are responsible for whatever ends up in your area of responsibility, whether or not you put it there. For example, if someone leaves a classified document on your desk, it becomes YOUR responsibility once you know or should have known it wast there. That is why smart and responsible officials are very careful NOT doing stupid things working through their personal emails, much less setting up a private server.

It is really beyond me how bad she let things get. She has lots of supporters trying to call this a political issue and it has overtones of politics. But it is based on her FUBAR behavior. It will catch up with her. Even the Obama DoJ cannot ignore it and the FBI will not.

They will not do to her what they did to Petraeus because of her political position, but she cannot go on like this.

If she gets away with this, I will seriously question the integrity of the process. She violated her security clearance. Now it would be incumbent on her to prove otherwise. This is not an innocent until proven guilty process. A holder of a clearance is presumed to have violated it if the circumstances suggest and then the individual must prove otherwise. Clinton stepped into something that she may not be able to lie her way out.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #402155

RF, to each his own.

CJ, let’s not get into the security clearance discussion again, it is fruitless since you and I are beyond making the decision whether her infractions were due to protocol or malfeasance.

I did catch a snippet of her discussion on MTP yesterday and she did not strike me as someone who was fearing for her political existence. To the contrary she seemed very confident that her candidacy will obtain the eventual nomination however she would not be so bold and assuming to predict that. You on the other hand seem to sure of her demise. I will observe and vote accordingly however so far I have seen no insurmountable obstacles to my vote for her. I have yet to see any evidence of “lying” that you and RF are so absolutely certain that she did. Maybe that is because we have different sources or would like different outcomes.

It is my belief that the Republican candidate will be more hard pressed to garner the necessary votes after a scurrilous and contentious campaign and may have to face a third party candidate that will not help their own candidacy.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 25, 2016 4:39 PM
Comment #402156

In some ways, I admire your contentions about Joe Biden. You seemed to have liked him all along. In fact I guess I could have imagined you voting for Biden rather than any of the Republican candidates, almost. He is not running though and I don’t see any way forward that he would do that, but I could be wrong.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 25, 2016 4:43 PM
Comment #402157

You know if John Huntsman were running he would be the only Republican candidate that might sway my vote. He got out early last time and wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole this time out. Too bad he struck me as a very good and knowledgeable candidate.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 25, 2016 4:45 PM
Comment #402159

Wow. It’s January, and some of you still think Biden will run. That’s not going to happen. Neither will Warren or Gore or whoever FOX pumped in vain hopes of convincing its audience Hillary was weak and not going to win.

Many of you spent 8 years attacking Bill Clinton, and will spend another 8 attacking Obama. That’s how you so richly earned candidates like Trump and Cruz. You DESERVE this. And you’ll spend another 8 years attacking Hillary.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2016 6:08 PM
Comment #402160

And you’ll spend another 8 years attacking Hillary.
Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2016 6:08 PM

More likely her ardent supports will send her candy in prison.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 25, 2016 6:24 PM
Comment #402161

Speaks

“CJ, let’s not get into the security clearance discussion again, it is fruitless since you and I are beyond making the decision whether her infractions were due to protocol or malfeasance.” - actually “we” are not. The onus is on the one with the clearance. If she had classified on her server, which she did, it is incumbent upon HER to show why it was not a violation. She does NOT have the excuse that it was not marked classified.

Let’s talk about what we know & don’t know. We do not know for sure what was on the server. We know that Clinton is not telling the truth if she says it was not her problem.

I think she feels confident because she is so arrogant that she believes the rules do not apply to her. I think in this case, she is mistaken.

Re third party - the most likely is Bloomberg. He has his problems with his silly campaign against sugared sodas and I think his gun control is a bit overdone, but I would certainly prefer him to Hillary or Trump.

Re Biden - He is a sincere and honest man. I worry that he is a little gaffe prone and it would maintain lots of the identity politics of the late Obama period, but I like Biden. His wife, Jill, is a wonderful woman and a “real person,” nothing like Hillary. She still teaches at Northern Virginia Community College and is a strong supporter of veterans.

I would not hate a Biden presidency. I would prefer him to Hillary or Trump.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 6:39 PM
Comment #402162

Use a little common sense. The e-mails were turned over in spring of 2015. HRC knew what was there. If there was something wrong beyond a policy infraction, HRC would not have bothered to run in the first place.

It is now January 2016. You’re still talking about prison. Get a grip. Stop listening to FOX and Limbaugh and Hannity. There is no FBI investigation of HRC, there never was one, and the FBI has already stated so.

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2016 6:46 PM
Comment #402163

“She’s under investigation with the FBI right now,” Bush said Jan. 14. “If she gets elected, her first 100 days — instead of setting an agenda, she might be going back and forth between the White House and the court house.”

Actually, Clinton is not under FBI investigation. The inquiry to which Bush refers revolves around the private email server Clinton used while serving as secretary of state. And it is not a criminal investigation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/jeb-bush/heres-whats-wrong-jeb-bush-saying-hillary-clinton-/

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2016 6:53 PM
Comment #402164

phx8

Hillary thinks she can beat any rap. Beyond that, she mistakenly thought she has wiped clean her server. The old joke was that there was not a shred of evidence against Hillary because she shredded all the evidence. She failed.

The FBI is investigating the email. It is Hillary’s email If they investigate the car you were driving for a hit-and-run, they will be investigating you if they find the car was involved.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 6:56 PM
Comment #402165

Unlike a hit-and-run, this is NOT a criminal investigation.

“The FBI is conducting a general inquiry into the security of Clinton’s private email server. But law enforcement officials have said Clinton herself is not the target of the inquiry, and it is not a full-blown criminal investigation.”

Posted by: phx8 at January 25, 2016 7:05 PM
Comment #402166

phx8

You are right that it is not a criminal investigation. Right now it has to do with her violation of her security clearance. This has a much lower burden of proof. In fact, the burden of prove is largely shifted to the defendant, i.e. Hillary. I really think she is cooked. She will not be indicted, since Obama will protect her, but she will develop “health issues” and exit the race.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 7:16 PM
Comment #402167

Anyway, wouldn’t everybody be better off with Biden as opposed to Hillary? Even those who would prefer someone else entirely can agree on that Hillary is the worse of the two.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 7:35 PM
Comment #402168

C&J, I agree that Hillary will find some excuse to exit the race. There are to many problems for her concerning her use of a private server and classified materials going through it. My biggest wonder is why Bill didn’t caution her about it or if he did maybe she blew him off, no pun intended.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 25, 2016 7:38 PM
Comment #402169

It’s my understanding that several DOS executive administrations have given short shift to the ‘techie’ world and security, both technical and physical.

IMO, the Clinton regime really feels they did nothing wrong a la the emails. To them, it’s all just information that they can choose to share or not. Security, communications and so on, are there to serve them as they see fit.

In the real world Hillary has acted to make herself ineligible to be a candidate for elected office. But, in the corpocratic world she may very well be be ‘exonerated’ by her like minded peers/associates.

Petraus, being a military guy, doesn’t get the elitists support that Hillary will surely receive.

Should Hillary get around the justice system it will, IMO, just further the divide between the ‘establishment’ and the folks. But, we can’t know the outcome until after the election.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at January 25, 2016 9:40 PM
Comment #402170

“Petraus, being a military guy, doesn’t get the elitists support that Hillary will surely receive.”

Nor does he deserve it, Roy. Petraeus knowingly passed highly classified material to Paula Broadwell. He used subterfuge to transmit the material. Petraeus also lied to the FBI about sharing the material with Broadwell and whether he had taken any classified material from the CIA and whether he had any in his personal possession.

Posted by: Rich at January 25, 2016 10:08 PM
Comment #402171

Rich

Much like Hillary.

The situations are analogous, except that Hillary did it more broadly.

Hillary is toast or at least should be in a just world. She will come up with some excuse to leave and her leaving will improve the prospects for our country.

Posted by: C&J at January 25, 2016 10:15 PM
Comment #402172
The situations are analogous, except that Hillary did it more broadly.

Huh? First of all, we don’t even know if anything on the server was even classified at the time.

Still, I have long believed that HRC would not win the Democratic nomination and it has nothing to do with these damn emails. She remains the flawed candidate that she was in 2008 when she was rejected by the Democratic electorate.

I’m going to take a leap of faith and predict that Bernie Sanders will take the nod and run against one of the anti-establishment Republicans. The establishments of both parties will unite behind Michael Bloomberg who will win the election. We are going to witness an upending of the current party system.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 25, 2016 11:49 PM
Comment #402173

Warren

It doesn’t matter if it was classified at the time. We assume that Hillary would be smart enough to know what might be classified. It is her responsibility. It is NOT a matter of innocent until proven guilty. As the holder of the clearance, she has a affirmative responsibly to protect our country’s secrets and by setting up a private server she created a security vulnerability adding to her responsibility.

Biden, IMO, is the likely nominee. He is better than Hillary. Bloomberg too is better than Hillary.

Hillary is way overrated. She is a smart woman who, had she not married Bill Clinton, would be a successful lawyer. She is not a president.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2016 12:11 AM
Comment #402174

C&J,

Come on! The Petraeus and Hillary email situations are hardly analogous.

Petraeus knew the material was highly classified and knew that it was illegal to share the material with Broadwell. He even told her that in his emails to her.

As Warren points out, there is no evidence that any of Hillary’s emails contained material classified at the time they were sent let alone evidence that Hillary acted with intent to distribute classified material.

Posted by: Rich at January 26, 2016 12:39 AM
Comment #402175

Rich

There is ample evidence that her emails had classified information. State has had to redact or not release some for that reason.

Hillary does not need intent. As the holders of a clearance, she has an affirmative duty. By setting up a private server, she created a security vulnerability. It is on her. This is not a court case where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. She created a vulnerability by going with a private server.

State Department rules caution against even using your own email, much less setting up your own servers. If you do such things, all the responsibility falls on you.

I think that Hillary is using the public’s general misunderstanding of the responsibilities of securing classified information. It is not like an ordinary case. You have special responsibility that cannot be delegated.

The closest thing in ordinary law relates to hunting. If you are out in the woods during hunting season and you are carrying hunting equipment, you are assumed to be hunting, whether or not they see you shooting at a deer.

Hillary violated her security clearance.Other employees of State would lose their clearances and maybe their jobs for doing what she did. The details of what she knew or even intended are not important. She created a vulnerability with her private server and classified material was found on it.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2016 12:57 AM
Comment #402176

Anyway, my forecast is that she develops “health issues” and drops out of the race. We will see in 3-6 months if I am right.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2016 12:58 AM
Comment #402178
It doesn’t matter if it was classified at the time. We assume that Hillary would be smart enough to know what might be classified. It is her responsibility. It is NOT a matter of innocent until proven guilty. As the holder of the clearance, she has a affirmative responsibly to protect our country’s secrets and by setting up a private server she created a security vulnerability adding to her responsibility.

Firstly, the private server is no different than the unsecured State department server. Neither is valid for storing classified information, so it’s a red herring at this point.

Secondly, just because someone in 2015 decided to redact something is no indication that a reasonable person in 2009-2013 would deem the same document to be classified. A lot can happen in 2 years including events that make previously unclassified information protected. Also, it is clear that the 2015 redactions are using a broader brush than is usually used. Obviously, this is because these emails are not going to be buried into obscurity like the myriad of other paperwork the government produces. People are watching.

Hillary does not need intent.
Petraeus had intent. Hillary does not. This is why there is no comparison. Intent may be irrelevant to whether she broke the law, but it is highly relevant when comparing her to Petraeus.
There is ample evidence that her emails had classified information. State has had to redact or not release some for that reason.

Many of those retroactive classifications have been subsequently reversed; as time passes, many more will be as well. Ultimately, it will come down to whether or not a reasonable person in 2009-2013 could have judged those communications to be worthy of protection. Neither you nor I are privy to the content of the redacted emails, but the FBI is currently reviewing the material. If they find something, HRC will get the book thrown at her. Considering her current confidence, I am persuaded that they aren’t going to find anything.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 11:03 AM
Comment #402179

Actually, they are different. The State “open-net” is stipulated by the authorities to be more secure than a private network (whether it is actually is immaterial). It also has the feature of being monitored by security personnel.

Putting classified on open net is not allowed. For that, there is the classified net. You cannot move classified information from class-net to open-net unless you specifically violate security.

No classified material is allowed on open net and certainly not allowed on any private network. That is was on Hillary’s net is a violation and since it is her network it is her violation.

Re intent - My guess is that Hillary did have intent. BUT it doesn’t matter in this kind of case. She is guilty until she indicates why she is not. Her creation of a private server created a security vulnerability. She opened the door and what walks through is on her.

Re whether a reasonable person would have known - a reasonable person with a security clearance would have known that documents sources from human intelligence would have to be classified. If you come across such a document, you have a proactive responsibility to secure it. If Hillary did not understand this, she is unfit to handle sensitive information.

If an ordinary State employee did what she did, or was even suspected of doing what she did, that person would have his/her security clearance suspended and probably revoked. The Secretary is held to a higher standard than the average guy. She failed the test.

What is protecting Hillary from general censure, besides her political friends, is that she has been able to frame this issue as an ordinary case where intent is important and where the burden of proof lies with the state. This is not how clearances work. We give people like Hillary greater access and with it comes greater responsibility. She cannot just be a dilettante anymore and shift her share of the blame.

Write it down. She is out of the race in a few months with some lame excuse about health or maybe family issues.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2016 11:35 AM
Comment #402180

I watched some of the Town Hall broadcast last night. Hillary seemed pretty healthy and showed absolutely no signs of using a “lame excuse”. Family issues? Isn’t that the excuse the conservative family values types use when they are caught in some nefarious conduct? “I want to spend more time with my family.”

Write it down, your ability to make political predictions has been questionable to say the least for the past 8 years or more. Please proceed with your uninformed and misguided derogation of a former Secretary of State, former US Senator and former First Lady. It is nothing if not amusing to observe someone of your position in life taking pot shots at someone of her accomplishments.

I expect that this investigation will lead to some changes in protocols for digital storage of classified information. They will probably be referred to as the “Clinton Protocols”, given the immense assistance Hillary will provide if she is successful in her bid for presidency.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 26, 2016 12:21 PM
Comment #402181
Actually, they are different.

I meant in the specific legal context of storing classified information, the difference between the unsecured State Department server was no different than Clinton’s private server.

Re intent - My guess is that Hillary did have intent. BUT it doesn’t matter in this kind of case. She is guilty until she indicates why she is not. Her creation of a private server created a security vulnerability. She opened the door and what walks through is on her.
Hillary has already indicated why she is not, namely she has claimed that the material on the server would not have been considered classified in 2009-2013.
a reasonable person with a security clearance would have known that documents sources from human intelligence would have to be classified. If you come across such a document, you have a proactive responsibility to secure it. If Hillary did not understand this, she is unfit to handle sensitive information.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Nobody knows the content that was redacted from the emails came from human intelligence.

A big issue stymying interpretation of what is classified and what isn’t classified are conflicting claims of parallel intelligence sources. For instance, last September human intelligence may have told the CIA that Putin was moving military assets to Syria. At the same time, imagery from Worldview 3 might depict Russian buildup. Because the imagery is commercially available to the public, the fact that the Russian military is in Syria should not be considered classified. However, if the CIA was not aware of the parallel, unclassified source, then they would have flagged an email describing the Russians in Syria as classified.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 12:56 PM
Comment #402182

Speaks

She is healthy and she will be healthy in May or June. But she will claim ill health as a way to get out of the race.

Re our positions in life - mine and Hillary’s. I am content that I have served my country as honorably than she has.

Unlike her, I have ACTUALLY been under fire in war zones, whereas she just lied about it. I have never compromised national security for personal or political gain. I have never allowed even the appearance of impropriety in my official dealings. I consider myself a better and more accomplished person, even if she has made a lot more money and got a spouse to get her jobs.

“I expect that this investigation will lead to some changes in protocols for digital storage of classified information. They will probably be referred to as the “Clinton Protocols” - on this we agree. She has pushed the limits of security beyond which a reasonable person would go. Nobody thought to make specific rules about some of these things because we assumed honest and intelligent people would be using them. Hillary has proven that assumption too optimistic.

We thought the system was fool proof. Hillary showed it was not.

Warren

The State open net is not unsecured and it is stipulated to be superior than a private server. It is like a cop having to use his official car when on duty, even if he thinks his own vehicle is faster or better. And - like the cop - Hillary became liable for a greater duty of care when she chose to make her own server.

There WAS classified material on her server. The nature of classified does not permit arguments about whether or not it SHOULD be. If this was on Open-net, administrators could monitor it. On Hillary’s secret server, this was denied them, so it is all on Hillary.

They would not have classified an unclassified source unless there was commentary associated with it. Hillary is lying or mistaken if she says it is just because she forwarded a NY Times article.

NOW, if she forwarded the article and made comments, it would likely become classified AND she should know that comment of the Secretary of State make it classified.

I do not believe Hillary is as smart as her supporters think, but I don’t think she is stupid enough not to know that. I attribute her behavior to reckless arrogance.

Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2016 1:23 PM
Comment #402183

Warped, The point is a person in the position that Hillary was in should and I repeat SHOULD know better then to have a personnel server while conducting government business knowing that classified information will flow through that server. Also a person in Hillary’s position would know what is classified or what is not classified no matter if it was marked classified or NOT. Who is to know what governments have classified info from Hillary’s server? Do you want a person in the office of POTUS who does things out of convenience?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 26, 2016 1:38 PM
Comment #402184

I am glad that you consider yourself more accomplished than Hillary Clinton, you will excuse me if I consider the source of that estimation faulty since you compare yourself to the caricature of her that we see from right wing pundits. The appearance you display is one of a disgruntled former employee bad mouthing their superior rather than someone that “never allowed even the appearance of impropriety in my official dealings”. Impropriety indeed!

Get back to us once your wife is elected President of the United States and you serve 8 years as “First Dude” or whatever, then go on to become elected a US Senator from one of the most populous states in our country and then some how garner an appointment as Secretary of State for the United States of America.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 26, 2016 2:22 PM
Comment #402185
it is all on Hillary.

It would all have been on her if it was on the open net as well. If classified information was found on your open net account, it would be solely your responsibility. Neither the system administrator nor anyone else would implicated. That is my only point.

They would not have classified an unclassified source unless there was commentary associated with it. Hillary is lying or mistaken if she says it is just because she forwarded a NY Times article.

NOW, if she forwarded the article and made comments, it would likely become classified AND she should know that comment of the Secretary of State make it classified.

Ultimately, it comes down to the nature of those comments (if any). Currently, there are disputes between various intelligence agencies as well as the State Department. There is a protocol for resolving those disputes. In the meantime, some emails will be redacted and the rest of us will have to hold our tongues before making judgements.

Clinton has repeatedly expressed confidence that none of the redacted emails contain any material that would have been considered classified in 2009-2013. Perhaps she is lying or mistaken, but if that is so it would represent a colossal error in judgement. Say what you want, but I doubt even Clinton has enough hubris to sully their reputations like that.

Hillary is lying or mistaken if she says it is just because she forwarded a NY Times article.
It’s not Clinton making these claims. There is an interagency dispute and we need to wait for that dust to settle before leaping to conclusions. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #402186
then to have a personnel server while conducting government business knowing that classified information will flow through that server.

KAP,
The contention is that HRC set things up so that no classified material would pass through the server. Although intelligence officials redacted some emails before they were made public for national security reasons, the classification status of those materials is in dispute. Clinton is confident that the content of her emails utilized only unclassified sources. We’ll soon see if she is telling the truth.

Do you want a person in the office of POTUS who does things out of convenience?
My opinion has not changed since last August. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 2:54 PM
Comment #402188

Warped, She had to be pretty stupid to have a contention that as SoS she would not have classified materials passing through her server. Either stupid or didn’t care.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 26, 2016 3:48 PM
Comment #402190

Part of the problem here is that while the FBI investigates, it is DOJ that indicts in the case of a suspected crime. Notice how often the conspiracies about the e-mails coming from anonymous sources suggest ‘the FBI will issue an indictment.’ That is simply wrong. And it begs the question- why would people investigating possible compromises of security then turn around and compromise the security of the investigation by making partisan leaks to the media?

This smacks of the same kind of conspiracy as Fast & Furious, the so-called IRS scandal, and others. During the Clinton administration there were 50 articles of impeachment based on various scandals. Back then, the prosecutor informed the House Republicans there was not enough evidence for any of them!

So here we are again. Back to the conspiracy theories. And when there is no indictment, guess what will be the conclusion? Go ahead, take a wild guess! Yep. That’s right. It will not be due to the fact HRC did nothing wrong. Oh no. It will be due to a conspiracy at the DOJ not to indict- in other words, a cover-up!

Posted by: phx8 at January 26, 2016 4:41 PM
Comment #402191

KAP,

The State department has a separate system of cables for transmitting classified information. Clinton’s server was designed to handle the same exact things as the open net State system.

Phx8,

The FBI does have the ability to recommend an indictment. If the DOJ chooses to ignore the FBI recommendation, then that would be a travesty.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #402193

Warped, We know that, but someone has been sending classified material over her private server and ULTIMATELY she is responsible for that. She is the arrogant dumba** that decided she needed CONVENIENCE rather then security. As I stated earlier, as SoS she knew what should be classified info and what is just chit chat. So whatever she had her server supposedly designed for kinda got messed up and is causing her problems.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 26, 2016 5:21 PM
Comment #402194

I think there’s a good chance Clinton loses Iowa and New Hampshire. How big of a loss and how the results get reflected in media will determine if she can win South Carolina and Florida still. Recent polls have her up 22 and 36 points in the two states. Sanders benefits greatly from the location and demographics of the early states. If Clinton wins Iowa she could possibly erode Sander’s almost sure win in New Hampshire and if he barely wins then I think the spin will start to be that Sanders is going to run into trouble in as things move South.

My advice is don’t let your hatred of Clinton make you believe her campaign is somehow on the ropes or that she can’t beat Sanders. She can. She probably will. She’ll need an injury to drop out? That’s highly unlikely. She’s raising tons of money, securing a ton of endorsements, and she’s drawing huge crowds. Sanders is a threat, don’t get me wrong. But he’s no Senator Obama, I’ll just say that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 26, 2016 5:36 PM
Comment #402195
someone has been sending classified material over her private server

We don’t know this. Initially, some emails were redacted under the suspicion of containing classified information. However, the process of making a final determination is not complete. As I already mentioned, there is a lot of interagency politics going on. Let us wait and see what happens before rushing to judgements.

ULTIMATELY she is responsible for that
Absolutely. If the FBI concludes that the material on her server would have been recognized as classified by a reasonable person in 2009-2015, then the shit will hit the fan for HRC. No excuses, even if Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan are the ones who put the classified info on the server in the first place. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 6:01 PM
Comment #402196

Speaks

I suppose many will disagree. I really have little respect for Hillary. She is a rich girl who married a man who turned out to be a political genius.

Warren

“Hillary has already indicated why she is not, namely she has claimed that the material on the server would not have been considered classified in 2009-2013.” This is not a valid excuse. The reason is that she created the vulnerability and extended to herself greater responsibility.

Re inter-agency dispute - this also does not matter. The agency that produces gets to classify it and it must be treated as such until officially changed. If a junior officer mistakenly classifies a document, the Secretary of State herself does not have the right to declassify it w/o going through proper channels.

Re “The State department has a separate system of cables for transmitting classified information. Clinton’s server was designed to handle the same exact things as the open net State system.” Her system CANNOT handle the same exact things as open net. The rules stipulate that open net is superior. One reason is that open net is monitored. That is a big deal. When you set up your own server, you are specifically and willfully avoiding that legal oversight.


Posted by: C&J at January 26, 2016 7:15 PM
Comment #402197

Warped, Well over 1000 pieces have been recognized as classified and should have been recognized as classified by Hillary, she has had enough experience in government to know better and if she didn’t she should have consulted Bill. Unless of course she, as I stated earlier, blew him off, no pun intended. Plus if it comes out that Huma and Jake want to save their A**’s by saying Hillary told them to remove the classified markings and send it through her server then BYE BYE Hillary. Then I think it would be like C&J says that she will claim a health problem and leave the race and Obama will quietly pardon her and she goes quietly into the sun set never to surface again.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 26, 2016 7:25 PM
Comment #402199

In bygone days there were firewalls in place to prevent classfied and unclassified information from being co-mingled. What with the advent of digital era it seems the classfied side of the house uses some communication devices that are plug compatible with public or unclassified side.

Didn’t Snowdon take classified from NSA computers via a ‘thumbdrive’ that would be plug compatible with public commercial equipment? Is that lowering the security profile, accepting the risk, for ‘efficiency’ and costs?

Classified communications equipment should be housed in secure facilities, armed guards, cipher locks, etc, and should be designed so as not to operate with public commercial equipment.

It’s like we are paying big bucks for crypto equipment and similar, only to give classified information away by using cheap thumb drives and so on - - -

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at January 26, 2016 9:58 PM
Comment #402200
Re inter-agency dispute - this also does not matter. The agency that produces gets to classify it and it must be treated as such until officially changed. If a junior officer mistakenly classifies a document, the Secretary of State herself does not have the right to declassify it w/o going through proper channels.

From what I have read, the State Department has claimed that documents it produced and found on HRC’s server were unclassified. Other agencies argue that State’s classification is wrong because they think their own classified materials were sourced. State disputes this, saying that they utilized parallel, unclassified sources. Determining who is right requires a time intensive process to sort everything out.

Well over 1000 pieces have been recognized as classified
Nope. Zero pieces have been recognized as classified as of 2009-2013. The thousand that you speak of are either subject to the interagency dispute I mentioned above or they were only classified retroactively. That is, a reasonable person would have deemed them unclassified in 2009-2013, but that subsequent revelations have upended that judgement.
Plus if it comes out that Huma and Jake want to save their A**’s by saying Hillary told them to remove the classified markings and send it through her server then BYE BYE Hillary
Of course. The same would also be true if it came out that HRC killed a man. HRC says she is confident that all one thousand of these messages will be deemed non-confidential when all is said and done. I say, let the investigation continue unimpeded and let the chips fall where they may. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 26, 2016 10:01 PM
Comment #402207

CJ, I would be curious to know what the reaction would be if that argument was used on your behalf in your marriage, such as:

“Your wife is a rich girl who married a man who turned out to be a forestry genius.”

I do know if I stated something like that to my wife I would not have a happy response and could quite possibly end up with a physical injury. Our marriage hopefully incorporates my genius with her pragmatism from my perspective(she, I am certain holds a different opinion).

You must think that Hillary has absolutely no redeeming qualities that contributes to their marriage? Or is this the way you view marriage?

Posted by: Speak4all at January 27, 2016 12:27 PM
Comment #402210

This is a lot of smoke being blown by people who have no idea what emails she sent and what was on them. The damage has already been done to HRC and it shows in the polls. If the FBI recommends an indictment and the AG passes, she will be tried in the court of public opinion at the failure of an Obama AG to do his job. If the FBI fails to recommend indictment, the public will again try her on the basis that the FBI is being controlled by Obama. I agree with C&J’s original post, she will never be the nominee. HRC has no people skills and when she opens her mouth, screechy sounds come out that sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. New events that have transpired since C&J wrote his post is that Obama has met with Bernie…for what reason??? The only thing Obama is concerned about is that his legacy not be undone. He doesn’t care whether it’s HRC or Bernie who runs, as long as they can accomplish his concerns. If he believed in HRC and supported her, why hasn’t he stated it. The idea that Hillary will bail for health reasons is a good assumption. That’s as good a reason as any; but she will bail, or she will be forced out. She was thrown under the bus in 08 by the Democrat Party, and she will be again.

Posted by: Blaine at January 27, 2016 7:29 PM
Comment #402211

Re-Hillary’s marriage: her marriage was one of convenience. If it were a marriage based on love, why has Bill been a whoremonger for the entirety of it? She is a conniver. She married Bill Clinton for ambitious reasons. On the other hand, I disagree with C&J on Bill Clinton’s intelligence level. He is and ha always been nothing more than a “snake oil” or “car salesman”. He’s a fast talker, and the proof…is his ability to talk himself into the beds of many married and single women. As for her redeeming qualities…she has none. She’s just a hateful old witch who has probably been the most evil thing there ever was to live with. She probably drove Bill to infidelity.

Posted by: Blaine at January 27, 2016 7:38 PM
Comment #402212

Warren

I think Hillary did wrong. If she was one of my employee, I would have to report her behavior to the security folks. If she had asked me to send some of those documents to a private server, I would have refused, as would have been my duty.

BTW - as a mid level officer, I was faced with a direct order by my big boss to send along a document that I felt was inappropriate. I refused to cooperate, went home and did not answer the phone. the next day, I went to work expecting to be sent home permanently. Instead, I found that my boss had found someone to do it for him, the shit had hit the fan and HE was almost kicked out.

We are instructed NOT to take part in unethical activities, even when ordered by experience. We are supposed to defend the integrity of our operations against fools.

I think it is significant that most of those implicated in Hillary’s email scandal were political appointees, i.e. her cronies, and not professionals, most of whom know better and have a greater sense of integrity.

I cannot say for sure if she broke the law. I am morally certain that she acted unethically and with reckless disregard for the security of her country. Really bad form.

Speaks

My wife was not a rich girl like Hillary. She had to work as a waitress and clerk in school. Your analogy would work, however, if I just got her a job in forestry and she pretended to be an expert.

Hillary just is no Bill Clinton. She lacks his special skills. If Democrats were to start from scratch, Hillary would never be among the choices.

Posted by: C&J at January 27, 2016 7:57 PM
Comment #402213

Only time will reveal whether HRC broke the law. I appreciate that Jack has shared his experiences as they shed light on the obligations shared by Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and others.

Despite my defence of Clinton, I continue to maintain my opinion that the decision to utilize a private server simply as a matter of convenience was a colossal lapse of judgement, just as her decision to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq represented a colossal lapse of judgement. Someone unable to foresee the consequences of these decisions ought to disqualify someone from the Presidency. I’m not voting for Clinton in the Democratic Primary and I will vote for a 3rd party if she is the Democratic nominee unless the GOP wises up and nominates someone capable to do the job.

Still, I see zero indication that Clinton has lied about this email affair or that she broke any laws regarding document classification. In part, I trust her when she emphatically states that none of her emails contained any information that was considered classified at the time. I am intelligent enough to recognize that something that requires classification in 2015 may have been unclassified in 2013. Something that the CIA or NSA believes to be derived from their own classified sources may in fact be derived from an unclassified source within the State Department.

We have a protocol for figuring out what happened and that protocol is being followed. Some here advocate doing away with that process and suggest substituting the court of public opinion for the court of law. Regrettably, mob justice is no justice at all. It’s just bitter name calling and emotional appeals. Fortunately, while Republican primary voters may not give a whit about maintaining the integrity of our justice system, the rest of the American electorate disagrees. If the FBI announces that the 1000 redacted emails contain nothing but unclassified information, then nobody is going to be harmed by this “scandal” except for the Republicans who propagated it.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 27, 2016 10:17 PM
Comment #402214

WP, and if the FBI announces that she sent classified emails…then what? The Clinton people are blaming Republicans for her email problems. The court of public opinion is not mob justice, it’s about trust. Just as you have no faith in her for stated reasons; others have no faith in her because she’s a liar. Even though you have no faith in her, you just can’t help yourself from coming to her defense.

Posted by: Blaine at January 27, 2016 10:42 PM
Comment #402215

Warped, If something is deemed classified in 2015, it damn sure was classified in 2013. It’s a pretty stupid assumption that something that wasn’t classified all of a sudden is classified 2 or more years later after everyone and their brother knows about whatever it is. Also if it is classified by the CIA, State, DoD, or any other government agency it is classified throughout.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 27, 2016 10:46 PM
Comment #402216
if the FBI announces that she sent classified emails

Then the DOJ will begin its prosecution. Obama isn’t interested in carrying Clinton’s water. If she violated the law, there’s nothing stopping him from throwing her under the bus.

I explored the accusation that Clinton was a liar back in October when she testified in Congress. Repeat your defamations a thousand times over and it won’t change the facts. Relative to the people vying for the GOP nomination, her honesty compares quite favorably.

Given her track record, I am liable to believe Clinton when she confidently asserts that none of those emails contain information that was classified at the time. A well-known American once said, “Trust, but verify” and that is exactly what I will do as the FBI completes its investigation. When they are done, let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 27, 2016 11:32 PM
Comment #402217

WP,
“… I am liable to believe Clinton when she confidently asserts that none of those emails contain information that was classified at the time.”

Agreed. There is a widespread misperception that this investigation is aimed at HRC. It is not. It never was aimed at her. If it turns out the scope of the investigation spreads, and she did something illegal, then like you said, ‘let the chips fall where they may,’ but based on her behavior, that seems highly unlikely.

At this point, Hillary has my support and I would vote for her. That does NOT mean she is perfect. Her vote on going to war in Iraq was a terrible mistake. She acknowledges that. It was a big reason why I supported Obama over her in 2008. There are many issues on which I disagree with her, and there have been occasions where her judgment was questionable.

Having said that, I still think she stands head and shoulders above the other candidates of either party. I am not an ideologue. I do not expect perfection. I do expect a person do exhibit intelligence, understand issues, speak with a degree of caution, show a core of compassion, and to conduct themselves with the dignity befitting a person representing the United States.

Hillary Clinton exhibited these qualities during the Benghazi hearing. She testified for an 11 hour session in a cool, calm, and collected manner, showing mastery of the issue, and never losing her composure despite literally hours of goading by opponents. She showed the kind of stamina and patience that I find amazing.

She will be subjected to horrendous personal attacks for the next eight years. I know that. But the same will be true of any candidate that runs as a Democrat. The hateful comments posted by Blaine are only a foreshadowing of what is to come. A significant portion of this country hated Obama from the day he took office, not for anything he did, but for what he was. It will be the same with Hillary Clinton- possibly worse, given the intense hostility to women that is already out there. Sadly, that is the country we have. It is not the one we would wish for.

Posted by: phx8 at January 28, 2016 12:33 AM
Comment #402218

phx8

We will disagree. I admit that I just do not like Hillary. I have not liked her since 1998, when as first lady she came on an official visit to Poland. I have never met a more arrogant and uniformed team. They disrespected our Polish friends and refused to understand the nuances of history so important in that part of the world.

On one particular occasion, Hillary demanded a meeting with leading intellectuals of Krakow. I warned her team that these were real intellectuals who would bring up real things. They wanted the meeting anyways, so we made it happen. It did not go well. Hillary was angry because they wanted to talk as well as listen. The Poles dismissed Hillary as a lightweight, who wanted only to pretend to understand.

It went on like this, one FUBAR to another. It continued even after they left when we found that they had stiffed some local street musicians who the wanted “spontaneously” to play. I paid those guys myself. Should have listed it as contribution to the Clinton campaign.

I had the “pleasure” of her visit to Brazil a few years ago. The sound and fury was amazing. She actually had a producer for the trip for the visuals. Again, they cared nothing for the actual hosts. For them, the Brazilians, like the Poles, were just extras in their production. She showed up late to some meetings and cancelled others for no good reasons. We heard she was tired and needed to sleep.

This is just bad form. You don’t do that kind of thing to your friends. And when you visit another country, you are on their land. You should not expect to dictate to them.

Anyway, as you can see I have personal issues with her. I feel she did a poor job on the basics of diplomacy and she was reckless with our nations secrets.

BTW - we had TWO Biden visits. Biden is a good man, whether or not you like him politically. He and his team are respectful and flexible. He shows up where he promises at about the time he says he will be there. As you know, most of success depends on showing up. His only “fault” is that he really loves people and will stay late until he has met everyone. Hillary is not like that. She does not put herself out for anybody.

Posted by: C&J at January 28, 2016 8:21 AM
Comment #402220

phx8

Just to add - I am not saying that I would support Biden politically. But I respect him and believe he could be a good president. He is an “ordinary guy” made good who gets his way by being nice and inclusive. Hillary is just an overrated dilettante, a privileged rich girl who gets her way by being nasty and demanding.

Biden would be okay. Hillary? The only good thing about Hillary is that she would not pay close attention to the job. She would travel and made vacuous speeches, as she did as Secretary of State, and real people could run the real operation.

Posted by: C&J at January 28, 2016 8:26 AM
Comment #402221

Seems as though there are two courts of public opinion. One with supporters of HRC, non-supporters and those that just wouldn’t vote for her at all. This group maintains that the evidence and decision is yet to be presented and are content with waiting until that process completes.

Then there is the Kangaroo Kourt of public opinion. The cerebral ones that just think they are better than her in every way imaginable, don’t worry if she is elected President you can still feel you are better than her it just will seem a little sillier then than it does now. Then we have the Limbaugh listeners that can parrot his vitriol word for word, I have never held what the “boil on the ass of humanity” has spewed in any regard at all. And then we have the angry old man that has hatred for his reasons?, they also can continue that if she is elected President and she will try to keep those darned kids off of their lawn.

Hey how about those Republican candidates? Well never mind, there is only 30% of the voting population that is even considering any of them. Good luck with 3 out of 10 when half of them will probably stay home since their form of divisiveness wasn’t pandered to enough.

phx8 stated correctly, it is sad.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 28, 2016 9:52 AM
Comment #402225

If Democrats were to start from scratch, Hillary would never be among the choices.

Posted by: C&J at January 27, 2016 7:57 PM

That is probably the best assessment I have ever read regarding Hillary and her political career.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 28, 2016 2:03 PM
Comment #402227

C&J,
Thank you for your observations about Hillary from a personal point of view. Although I have never met Biden, a family friend had close interactions with Senators including Biden, and she said the same thing as you- he was a terrific guy, very likeable, and very much the old time backslapping pol. He would have made a decent president.

I’ve only heard friend of a friend of a friend type feedback about HRC, and it was generally positive. People in real life are often very different from their public image; for example, I like Elizabeth Warren’s politics, but I have heard she is mean in real life. That’s not surprising. She was a Harvard professor specializing in a dismal subject. Likeability was never a factor. She is a great person to sic on the banks, but she would probably make a poor president.

McCain and Lindsey Graham both are supposed to be terrific guys. There is a good reason they are constantly asked to appear on Sunday talk shows. Everyone likes them.

And according to that same person I mentioned earlier, Ted Cruz really is a *****. That’s not just Trump bloviating. In person, Cruz is awful. Like someone said, Democratic Senators dislike Ted Cruz for his policies, while Republican Senators dislike him. He would make a terrible president, treating half the country as the enemy, and constantly claiming to be persecuted. He would be a complete disaster.

Oddly enough, Trump is supposed to be very charming in person. The whole stage thing is circus act. But on stage, he is a very good carnival barker, and he has stirred the fires of bigotry and hatred. Other than his angry nativism, I have no idea what he actually believes. The idea of him as president is like playing 52 card pick-up with the future of the country.

Posted by: phx8 at January 28, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #402231

“Other than his angry nativism, I have no idea what he [Trump] actually believes.”

Ain’t that the truth, phx8. Policies and political philosophy are not on his agenda.

He is attempting to hijack the Republican political machine to run as an independent. But, also note that Bernie Sanders, a long term independent Senator, is attempting to do the same thing with the Democratic party.

The establishment of both parties are aghast. Interesting election cycle.

Posted by: Rich at January 28, 2016 5:30 PM
Comment #402232

So who does the American people support; an establishment or non-establishment candidate? Hint: congressional numbers in the crapper.

Posted by: Blaine at January 28, 2016 5:58 PM
Comment #402234

“If Democrats were to start from scratch, Hillary would never be among the choices.”

That Hillary is “among the choices” was entirely up to her. Other than die hard Hillary supporters, I know of no one who has “made a choice” as far as a Democrat candidate for President the primaries and convention will decide that. Hillary Clinton has declared herself as a candidate for President, that was her decision and her decision alone. Now she is being scrutinized by the American people, rightfully so. There is much to scrutinize and her detractors would be best to stick to specifics on policies and issues rather than cursory observations of her demeanor or unproven accusations. Cursory observations of the demeanor of any of the candidates only obscures the evaluation of the candidates be they Democrat, Republican, Independent or other.

I really like the job Sanders has been doing as a candidate. Very little negativity, a good outline of the policies and he is drawing huge crowds. This is all good for the process.

I wish I could say the same for the Republican primary process but perhaps my opinion of that is somewhat jaded.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 9:39 AM
Comment #402235

Speaks

You really have an exaggerated respect for Hillary - “That Hillary is “among the choices” was entirely up to her.” Actually, it is not. Of course, any American can claim to run for president, but they would not be among the choices. W/o Bill, Hillary would be a reasonably successful lawyer. That’s it.

Consider Hillary w/o Bill, even assuming she would have gotten the high level jobs w/o him. She was a Senator & Secretary of State. She was not particularly successful at either. Even if you like her, she was average at best.

No former Secretary of State in the 20th or 21st Century has gone on or even run for president. It is not a natural trajectory. What about a junior Senator? It happens, but not often. But even Obama had other elected office experience.

So absent her relationship with Bill, why would Hillary be a serious contender for president, much less the dominant front runner?

So, were she not Mrs Clinton, she would be an ordinary citizen. Probably a good citizen, but not extraordinary.

With any luck, she will be an ordinary citizen again in 2017. Well, not ordinary - very, very rich. But she will not be getting such big money for her lectures.

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 10:27 AM
Comment #402236

And even if we keep it in the Democratic Party, wouldn’t you really rather have Joe Biden?

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 10:35 AM
Comment #402237

Your observation that I have an “exaggerated” respect of Hillary would be incorrect in my opinion, however it is your observation and I would not contest that.

I cannot explain to you why Hillary would be a serious contender if not for her relationship with Bill, that would be hypothetical and I would rather stick to what “is” rather than what could be. She is the wife of Bill Clinton, a former President of the US, your observation that if it were not for that she would just be an ordinary citizen is again your observation and I would not contest that.

I am unable to consider Hillary and her career without Bill, that would be bordering on fantasy not fact. She campaigned vigilantly first for governor of Arkansas then for President for him and held the position as First Lady in each of those instances. She wasn’t handed that. No more than you were handed being your wife’s husband.

I could easily say that Trump wouldn’t be anywhere if it wasn’t for his Daddy’s money but that is not the point of contention from my perspective, I don’t like his policies and most of the issues he supports. You may want to focus on Hillary’s demeanor or lack of political acumen but don’t expect me to agree with that or be commensurate with that observation. You are welcome to use it but please allow me to disagree in what I would hope would be a thoughtful manner. Excuse me if I have not presented myself in that manner.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 10:44 AM
Comment #402238

Again what I would rather have is hypothetical and I wish to remain with the decisions that I do have, not the ones I would have wanted.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 10:45 AM
Comment #402240

The “Hypothetical” makes a difference because Hillary was just given the clear lane since 2008. When has that happened before? Can you think of any case in American history when someone was the presumptive nominee even a couple years before the first primary? So the question of “Why Hillary?” makes sense. In fact, she was the presumptive nominee since 2004, except that Obama “stole” it from her.

I cannot think of this ever happening before. The closest I can think of in this sense of entitlement was for Teddy Kennedy in the 1970s. If not for his unfortunate incident of the drowned girl, he would have made it. But even he was not “the one” in the way Hillary has been.

Consider the competition. Obama was an outsider and Bernie is even more an outsider, guys with little to lose. None of the party heavyweights entered against her. Has there been no viable mainstream Democrat since 2000? Has there been no progress among Democrats since 2000 that they need to reach 16 years into their past?

So we have a historic anomaly. Again, “why Hillary?”

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 11:45 AM
Comment #402242

Hillary Clinton as a candidate to me and many others is progress among Democrats(my wife is especially enamored with the possibility, for obvious reasons). Obama did not “steal” anything but instead was elected President. Sanders would not be “stealing” anything if he is nominated as the Democrat candidate.

I get that you have a hard time with Bill and Hillary. There are pundits that have built their careers around that hard time and have quite successful careers because of it. If Hillary is able to be elected President that will only continue unabated and will become even more contentious, I expect.

Ted Kennedy did suffer politically from the unfortunate accident with that young woman but I feel his destiny was already questioned much like Jeb’s has been. Too many Kennedy’s had already been “considered”, was his biggest problem. Just as Jeb is having problems dealing with “not another Bush”. Although in my opinion he would be the most viable Republican candidate from an experience point of view but can’t get past the litmus test of “he’s not conservative enough”.

I have explained to you that I have not decided yet who I would vote for and even have strong inclinations to Sanders now and yes even some of what Trump says I find provocatively appealing(yikes can’t believe it, but I do).

Given that I understand that you do not support Trump couldn’t I also make the observation “So we have a historic anomaly”. “Why Trump?” In asking that, I would like to know why you think the phenomenon is appealing to some people. He has even less experience than Hillary and is even more caustic to some of the voting public.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 12:08 PM
Comment #402243

I am curious about the Democrat Party and its lack of viable presidential candidates other than Sanders and Clinton.

Biden could have entered the race and is presumed to have had a very good chance of winning the White House. He didn’t for reasons that are not clear to me.

But what is more mystifying for me is the lack of other Democrat Party folks not throwing their hats in the ring long ago in the 2016 race.

Is it simply a lack of such people? Is it a lack of ambition in such people? Was it fear of running against an entrenched candidate such as Clinton?

The Democrat Party, by its own definition, is the Big Tent Party. Why, in such a big tent, are there so few who want to lead the Party and the country?

It does come to mind that the Democrat Party has shifted very far to the Left. Has the shift left some “would be” candidates out in the cold? Are possible good candidates refusing to run on a ticket that is so far from mainstream America?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2016 1:25 PM
Comment #402244

RF, that the Democrat party has shifted very far to the left, would seem to be your contention. The election of President Obama was a shift left as proclaimed by the pundits who claimed he would “destroy the country” and yet by some accounts he has governed from the middle. I would submit that the Democrat party is simply progressing, as it should. Clinton and Sanders are a normal product of that progression. A woman and a democratic socialist, that’s pretty far left as you state. We might all wonder why the Democrat field is so narrow, just as we might all wonder why there is such a plethora of Republican candidates. Now you might contend that is just great, myself I see it as a state of confusion since the leading Republican candidate has virtually no political experience and a lot of baggage while the rest nip at his heels at every opportunity.

I believe you would like to see a Democrat candidate that believed in small government, fiscal responsibility and strong societal values. That’s not gonna happen, no how no way. I would like to see a Republican candidate that is ready to take on income inequality, gender discrimination and less involvement in social values manipulation. Again not gonna happen, no how no way.

Democrats, to me, seem more poised to maintain the office of Presidency and gain stronger involvement in state and local government. This is not a prediction as much as it is a genuine desire.

To be succinct I would submit that Democrats began with three very good candidates and have narrowed that to two coming into the primaries (sorry O’Malley). The Republicans started out with 19 not so good candidates and have narrowed that down to about 10 not so good candidates. Not much progression there, but then again that would be my opinion. I respect yours but believe in mine.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 2:22 PM
Comment #402245

Speaks

Really? The very best Democrats could come up with were a junior senator and an old socialist, who was not even registered as a Democrat before the race?

It is clear that the race was rigged for Hillary. The fix was in back in 2008 too, but they failed to scare off Obama and he did not play to their script. Give him credit for that. But this time they strangled any opposition before it could raise its head.

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 2:44 PM
Comment #402246

Thanks for the response Speaks. I know how difficult it is to answer my questions as it is mysterious. Perhaps the answer is that “The Big Tent” party no longer allows room for the middle or the conservative candidates. Yes, it is true that at one time the Dems embraced left, right, and middle. It is also true that at one time I could find a candidate to vote for in the Democrat Party. Today, my choice should I choose to vote Democrat, is Left and Socialist. I shudder to think what my choices would be in ten or twenty years.

The Republicans have what I believe are Right, Center, and moderately Left candidates. Are they the new “Big Tent Party”?

Frankly, I believe the Democrat Party is running too fast to the Left for the public, or for some potential good candidates, to keep up with.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #402247

Royal, I can tell you exactly why the Democrat Party cannot find someone to run against a “socialist/communist” or an entrenched HRC. The very thing the left loves to accuse the Republican Party of (it’s division) is the very thing that has happened to the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has a socialist group that has hijacked the party. Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist/communist and this has forced Hillary to become more radically left (socialist/communist)in order to compete with Bernie. There are still Democrats who are not socialist/communist and what are they to do? Stop and think for a moment; if JFK were alive today, would he be identified with today’s Democrat Party? I say he would not. Let’s look at their platform compared to what JFK believed : higher taxes, JFK lower; increased spending, JFK controlled spending; gay marriage, JFK was strong Catholic and against homosexuality and the same can be said for abortion; anti-capital punishment, JFK was pro; universal HC, JFK would have never considered it; pro-illegal immigration, JFK controlled borders; gun confiscation, JFK pro 2nd amendment; anti-military, JFK very pro military; weak on defense of America against our enemies, JFK showed his strength against our enemies; today’s left has thrown the blue collar worker under the bus, while JFK was strong pro blue collar worker. We could keep going down the list. Could you possibly imagine Obama or HRC dealing with the Cuban missile crisis? JFK would not recognize the Democratic Party of today.

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 3:24 PM
Comment #402248

Thanks for the reciprocal dialogue, RF. You might be correct about the Democrat party, I am in no way associated with the inner gears and cogs that make up the organizational process of the Democrat party. I am however a registered Democrat. I guess your reference to a more diverse Democrat candidate would be someone like Joe Manchin (WV) or Heidi Heitkamp (ND). Those two come to mind but I don’t really think that they signify a radical change from progressive Democrats as much as they cast votes to retain their constituency in their respective states that might disagree with progressive policies. Perhaps you might suggest a couple you would consider?

I do believe that the current Republican party is trying to garner the “Big Tent” nomenclature. Their problem in accomplishing that however is their appeal to minorities (not there), their willingness to let go of social values control(birth control/abortion rights/gender equality), their non-union stance and a genuine disregard for the benefits of Medicare/Medicaid and other programs designed to help the middle class more.

Surely there must be some up and coming young Republicans that can seize the opportunity to display the party’s responsibility to not give it all away but shine a light on what they could do to improve those positions. I haven’t seen that yet, at all.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 3:31 PM
Comment #402249

Speaks made 2 important observations:

1. The first is “I would submit that the Democrat party is simply progressing, as it should.”

This comment discounts my claim that JFK would not be part of todays socialist/communist party. As the Constitution is an evolving document; speaks is letting us know the Democratic Party is also evolving. They know that the Democrats of yesteryear would not be part of the joke that has evolved today.

2. Secondly is this observation, “Democrats, to me, seem more poised to maintain the office of Presidency and gain stronger involvement in state and local government. This is not a prediction as much as it is a genuine desire”.

How do you make a prediction and call it a desire? It sounds like you made a prediction. So how’s that going for you speaks? Since Obama took office the Democrats have lost over 1000 seats in state and local governments. Since Obama took office, the Democrats have lost control of the Senate and the House. And I predict they will not only lose the Presidency, but will also lose more House, Senate, state and local seats. That can also be called a desire.

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 3:38 PM
Comment #402250

CJ, called it rigged if you like but it could be what they, me and others wanted and still want today. Hillary, a strong woman who will fight for the things she talks about and a strong elderly statesman that will also fight for the things he talks about. Perhaps you could suggest someone from the Democrat party that you would find appealing?

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 3:39 PM
Comment #402251

Here is a direct quote from JFK’s book Profiles in Courage:

“If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

Sounds a lot like what I think being a “Liberal” is.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 3:42 PM
Comment #402252

So what speaks has informed us of, is that Manchin and Heitkamp are liars and deceivers. They are merely claiming to be conservative Democrats for the sake of votes. And yet I am sure speaks claims that Hillary and Bill are moderate Democrats as he claims Obama was able to govern from the middle; are not in the same deceptive boat as Manchin and Heitkamp simply because they (as Hillary does) goes to the far, far left for political reasons. Why would Manchin and Heitkamp be liars and deceivers and yet Hillary is not; when they all doing the same thing?

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 3:50 PM
Comment #402253

Sorry speaks, but the Democratic Party was not calling themselves liberal and neither was JFK. He was simply saying, if those who are on other side are identifying people who believe in these things mention are called liberal, then that is what I am. It was a derogatory term that no Democrat wanted to be saddled with. The Democrats have a way of shuffling back and forth between “liberal” and “progressive”. It depends on the circumstances. But the real question is…if JFK were to rise from the grave, would he recognize the Democratic Party of today as the one of his day? Given the religious and morality of one from the great generation, would he accept the lack of morals of todays Democrat Party? That is the question posed.

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 4:00 PM
Comment #402254

Blaine, because they are all politicians. It’s up to people like us to decide who we want to represent us. We will probably disagree on that and on many other things, that is OK, we should. I am not trying to be deceptive. I am just trying to understand my fellow WB commenters and trying to understand how to best contribute my vote to obtain the outcome I desire. You are free to do what you want.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 4:03 PM
Comment #402255

The Republican speeches of today, sound like the Democrat speeches of yesteryear; the Democrat speeches of today sound like Hitler, Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 4:04 PM
Comment #402256

Blaine, I don’t know. You would have to try to ask him yourself. I know I don’t see the “lack of morals” you speak about of today’s Democrat party.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 4:07 PM
Comment #402257

And what I am trying to say is that the Democratic Party of today is nothing like the Democratic Party of 50-60 years ago; and that your claim to have the unions is incorrect. You may have the support of the union bosses, but the Democrat Party has thrown the blue collar workers off and under the bus. How long do you suppose you will have the support of minorities, when their unemployment rates are astronomical? You live in a fantasy world to believe the American people are happy with what Obama and the Democrats have done to this country. Do you think the United Mine Workers are happy that Obama’s EPA has forced the shutdown of dozens of coal mines and caused the unemployment of thousands of workers?

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 4:12 PM
Comment #402258

Speaks

“Obama did not “steal” anything but instead was elected President.” I was using steal in the metaphorical sense. He took what Hillary thought was hers by entitlement. Just as you may complain someone “stole” the job you thought you would get.

Re Kennedy - I am convinced that w/o the death and his dishonorable behavior, he would have been president. But who knows. Like Hillary, he thought it was his turn, but others may have disagreed.

Re Trump - Trump is stranger but not that hard to understand. He appeals to anger and emotion. Actually, he is the other side of the Sanders insurgency. People on the left are angry because Obama let them down. People on the right are angry because Obama let them down. Both are exaggerating.

Re who I like better than Hillary among Dems - I like Biden better. I like Webb better. I even like Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown better. They have some real experience. I am sure there are many others who could have been developed had there not been a freeze over the past ten years.

BTW - Kerry is a better Secretary of State than Clinton. Of those I worked for Clinton is in the bottom third. The worst was Madeline Albright. The best was Larry Eagleburger.

Hillary is qualified because her husband was president, which is rare and evidently because she is a women, which applies to more than half the population. Besides that, she is ordinary, just a nasty old lady.

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 4:17 PM
Comment #402259

Blaine, we disagree. That is no problem for me. As RF and maybe CJ will understand, it is Friday and I have an appointment with a plate of raw oysters, a bloody mary and a cold beer. See you here some time soon. RF, CJ thanks for the dialogue.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 4:21 PM
Comment #402260

BTW - according to Politico

The furor over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account grew more serious for the Democratic presidential frontrunner Friday as the State Department designated 22 of the messages from her account “top secret.”

It was the first time State has formally deemed any of Clinton’s emails classified at that level, reserved for information that can cause “exceptionally grave” damage to to national security if disclosures.

State did not provide details on the subject of the messages, which represent seven email chains and a total of 37 pages. However, State spokesman John Kirby said they are part of a set the intelligence community inspector general told Congress contained information classified for discussing “Special Access Programs.”

Recall - the Inspector General is an Obama appointee, so Clinton will have trouble calling this a right wing conspiracy

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 4:22 PM
Comment #402261

So these are the options -

1 - Hillary is too dumb to know what should be classified, i.e. she could not recognize it and was simply serially incompetent.
2 - Hillary was irresponsible in her handling of classified material (since it was her duty to safeguard classified material whether or not it was marked.)
3. Hillary just thought rules did not apply to her and put her political ambitions ahead of her country’s security.

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 4:29 PM
Comment #402262

. See you here some time soon. RF, CJ thanks for the dialogue.
Posted by: Speak4all at January 29, 2016 4:21 PM

Enjoy the family, the food and the oysters.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2016 4:35 PM
Comment #402263

Frankly, I believe it must be a tough time for a moderate, religious, working, mainstream Democrat today. Who in the party echelon represents them and their interests?

Are we really expected to believe that many millions of the Democrats I described above will put party above self-interest and pull the lever for ever more Left-leaning; or socialists candidates?

I maintain that the Party has finally tipped too far Left to attract the moderate Democrat. Many will stay home and many will hold their nose and vote Republican.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 29, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #402264

C&J,

I just took a look at the Politico article. It seems things are not looking to bright for Clinton. Given the unwavering confidence expressed by Clinton over the past year, it is truly bizarre. Can someone’s ambition really blind them so much? With the emails in the possession of investigators, how could one possibly believe that classified emails would escape their purview?

Rumor has it that the CIA considered those 22 emails “Top Secret” because they acknowledge that the CIA has killed people overseas in drone strikes. However, this is something that is really common knowledge. I was wondering, how common is the phenomenon of “overclassification”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 29, 2016 5:03 PM
Comment #402265

Warped, We know there are Drone strikes but what is TOP SECRET is the targets.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 29, 2016 6:06 PM
Comment #402266

KAP,

The very existence of the military drone program is classified so it shouldn’t have been on her server.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 29, 2016 7:27 PM
Comment #402267

Warped, Everybody and their brother knows we have a drone program, as I said what is “Classified or Top Secret” are the TARGETS. And yes those should never have been on her private server.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 29, 2016 7:49 PM
Comment #402268

Yes, the targets as well as the existence of the drone program itself are both state secrets. It shouldn’t matter if everybody knows that Anwar Al-Awlaki got killed by drone. That fact shouldn’t be on her account or anyone’s account for that matter because its classified.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 29, 2016 8:07 PM
Comment #402269
C&J,

I just took a look at the Politico article. It seems things are not looking to bright for Clinton. Given the unwavering confidence expressed by Clinton over the past year, it is truly bizarre. Can someone’s ambition really blind them so much? With the emails in the possession of investigators, how could one possibly believe that classified emails would escape their purview?

Rumor has it that the CIA considered those 22 emails “Top Secret” because they acknowledge that the CIA has killed people overseas in drone strikes. However, this is something that is really common knowledge. I was wondering, how common is the phenomenon of “overclassification”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 29, 2016 5:03 PM

Perhaps someone could explain to me what is going on in the mind of Warped Reality? He just made this comment to C&J, and yet in Comment #402213, He makes this comment:

Despite my defence of Clinton, I continue to maintain my opinion that the decision to utilize a private server simply as a matter of convenience was a colossal lapse of judgement, just as her decision to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq represented a colossal lapse of judgement. Someone unable to foresee the consequences of these decisions ought to disqualify someone from the Presidency. I’m not voting for Clinton in the Democratic Primary and I will vote for a 3rd party if she is the Democratic nominee unless the GOP wises up and nominates someone capable to do the job.

Still, I see zero indication that Clinton has lied about this email affair or that she broke any laws regarding document classification. In part, I trust her when she emphatically states that none of her emails contained any information that was considered classified at the time. I am intelligent enough to recognize that something that requires classification in 2015 may have been unclassified in 2013. Something that the CIA or NSA believes to be derived from their own classified sources may in fact be derived from an unclassified source within the State Department.

Then we have Warped responding to my comment in Comment 402216 with this statement:

I explored the accusation that Clinton was a liar back in October when she testified in Congress. Repeat your defamations a thousand times over and it won’t change the facts. Relative to the people vying for the GOP nomination, her honesty compares quite favorably.

Given her track record, I am liable to believe Clinton when she confidently asserts that none of those emails contain information that was classified at the time.

Is WP now saying he believes Hillary Clinton lied and knew full well that she was sending and receiving classified email? Have the facts changed?

Furthermore WP made this comment, “Can someone’s ambition really blind them so much?” Is WP so shocked at Hillary Clintons blind ambition and yet not be able to see that Obama has been doing the exact same thing for over 7 years?

On a side thought, here is a link for speaks to read when he sobers up from his Friday night drunk:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/business/donald-trump-unions.html?_r=0

It kind of blows his theory of who supports a socialist/communist agenda right out of the water…but hey, since when did a few truths ever get in the way of a leftist fantasy?

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 8:12 PM
Comment #402270

Warped, If the existence of the drone program is classified then I think we will both be cell mates of Hillary’s for talking about it on WB.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 29, 2016 8:38 PM
Comment #402271

Blaine,

Obviously, my opinion will change when I encounter new information. I try to approach things rationally rather than enslave myself to dogma. My primary purpose for participating on Watchblog is to learn. Whether it be the comments of people older and wiser or the news reports others read that miss my purview, there are plenty of channels for me to further reduce my ignorance.

Furthermore WP made this comment, “Can someone’s ambition really blind them so much?” Is WP so shocked at Hillary Clintons blind ambition and yet not be able to see that Obama has been doing the exact same thing for over 7 years?

Apparently, not everyone agrees with my opinion that it is best to dispense with prejudicial dogma. Oh well…

Have the facts changed?

Until today, there never had been any reports from within the State Department indicating that any of Clinton’s emails contained anything classified. Up until now, the whole issue has been an inter-agency dispute with Foggy Bottom arguing things were unclassified and others disputing this. Whether this leads to an indictment later this year is unknown.

Is WP now saying he believes Hillary Clinton lied and knew full well that she was sending and receiving classified email

Always a lawyer, HRC is too smart to actually lie. Just like how her husband’s proficiency with legalese allowed him to deny having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky in a deposition for Jones v. Clinton because he never “knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person”. Clinton’s affair involved neither Lewinsky’s anus, groin, breast, inner thigh nor buttocks as they restricted themselves to fellatio.

Tellingly, Clinton has only denied sending or receiving content that was marked classified, which is not a complete denial of running afoul of the rules for classified documents. Clinton had a responsibility to recognize sensitive information even when unmarked and she has yet to comment on this possibility. I have no experience with classified documents, so I do not know how common it is to encounter unmarked classified material or the proper procedure for such unmarked material.

That said, it is incredulous that HRC would mishandle the public’s trust in this manner. Surely, she must’ve known whether or not she followed the law or not. And if not, she had a responsibility to not continue a campaign for the Presidency. If she dropped out last summer, then someone better such as Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo or Deval Patrick might have jumped. She would have abused the faith of her own political allies for an ambition that was destined to collapse.

Returning to C&J’s Comment #402261. I cannot say which of those three options may be true. However, the first option alleges that only a very incompetent person would make these sorts of mistakes. Without knowing the content of the emails, it is impossible for laymen like us to tell. That said, I know overclassification has been a problem for decades. In the absence of markings, I can empathize with someone mistaking the classification of something that is truly banal. Also, I know that even John Bolton has written, “It was frequently hard to know who was cleared to see what or what could be discussed with whom. If there is anyone who fully understands our ‘system’ for protecting classified information, I have yet to meet him.”

Given these longstanding issues regarding overclassification, I feel the recent scandal involving Clinton’s emails ought to serve as an impetus for a discussion about our system for guarding state secrets. Right now, State Department employees cannot view documents or reports related to WikiLeaks. This strikes me as quite silly, but the alternatives also have their downsides. We need to have a national conversation about these things in order to reach a consensus as to how we operate in the face of many individuals determined to undermine us.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 29, 2016 9:14 PM
Comment #402272
I think we will both be cell mates of Hillary’s for talking about it on WB.

Exactly my point.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 29, 2016 9:19 PM
Comment #402273

“That said, it is incredulous that HRC would mishandle the public’s trust in this manner.”

Incredulous…both Clintons have always felt themselves above the law. What applies to the common peasants, certainly does not apply to them.

It’s sad that what you are just learning about Hillary’s illegality, has been told to you time and time again, and met with denial. On Jan.8th CBS News reported that Hillary had instructed her aids to send emails after redacting the top secret classifications:

CBS News reports on what looks like a blatant violation of the law, not to mention the final demolition of Clinton’s false claims to be unaware that classified material was passing through her unauthorized, unsecure private email server:
On the campaign trail, the presidential candidate has insisted that no classified information was sent or received through her private email server.

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides “say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.”

Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

CBS tries to give Clinton an out by saying there’s no way to tell for certain from this exchange if the talking points in question contained classified material… but Clinton and Sullivan are clearly aware they are discussing material that was supposed to be transmitted using secure means, and she knows perfectly well how important those “identifying headings” are.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/new-clinton-email-appears-to-show-her-ordering-aides-to-violate-classification-laws/

Posted by: Blaine at January 29, 2016 10:54 PM
Comment #402274

Warped, LOL I don’t think so, everyone and their brother already knows about the Drone program. It’s not a secret that we fly Drones. Only the Targets are.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 29, 2016 11:00 PM
Comment #402275

Warren

Over-classification is common. Nevertheless, it does not matter in this case. The person holding the clearance has the affirmative duty to protect the classified information until that classification is lifted. It looks worse for Hillary than even I thought. I thought she would run right along the edge of the playing field, acting unethically but not illegally. I thought she was too clever actually to have broken the law. Now it looks like she did.

I say again, SHE created the vulnerability. Setting up a private server is like choosing to take that drink before driving drunk or like willfully failing to lock the safe when you leave the office. If something bad happens, you no longer get the benefit of the doubt.

I find it personally offensive that someone like Hillary was Secretary of State. She is either too stupid or too craven and has forfeited the respect I gave even to Albright.

As a partisan, I would rather all this shit would have hit the fan a little later in the election cycle. Hillary may yet find a way to recover. The Clinton playbook will involve going on the attack and personally demeaning the professionals involved in the investigation. Given time and Clinton capacity for mendacity, anything is possible.

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 11:31 PM
Comment #402276
It’s sad that what you are just learning about Hillary’s illegality, has been told to you time and time again, and met with denial.

It’s sad that people like you have HRC tarred and feathered before the facts have come to light. I continue my faith in the FBI’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Without knowing the content of these email messages, it is impossible for us to reach any conclusions.

That said, my opinion of HRC, already low from her misplaced prioritization of personal convenience over national obligation, has diminished recently. I really don’t want a socialist as President, but Sanders may be Democrats’ only hope.


On Jan.8th CBS News reported that Hillary had instructed her aids to send emails after redacting the top secret classifications

Why not link me to CBS news then? I’m sure someone has told you the value of primary sources over hearsay. If you had, you would have learned:
It’s unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive — especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.
And State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system.

Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent “apparently by secure fax, after all,” and was never was sent to Clinton by email.

Furthermore, it is common for a document to contain both classified and classified information. It not be extraordinary for Clinton to ask Jake Sullivan to redact the classified portions and send the rest to her over an unsecured connection.


KAP,

It’s not a secret that we fly Drones. Only the Targets are.

According to the CIA, the very existence of the drone program is sensitive government secret, so you are wrong in this regard. Secondly, the names of many people targeted by drones have already been widely disseminated in the media. Thirdly, you have to be making a lot of assumptions to believe Clinton’s emails discussed targets for drone killings instead of conversing about the drone program in general. Either would receive a top secret classification from the CIA.

C&J,

Over-classification is common. Nevertheless, it does not matter in this case. The person holding the clearance has the affirmative duty to protect the classified information until that classification is lifted.

The law is the law. If that means the very existence of the CIA’s drone program is considered “Top Secret”, then Clinton had an obligation to keep any mention of it off her private server.

I’m only looking for a silver lining here. It is ridiculous that public officials cannot discuss commonly know facts in an unsecured setting. I understand the argument that despite the easy access to information to the CIA’s drone program, they might not necessarily wish to confirm any of it. And confirm it, Clinton’s emails did do, if the reporting is to be trusted.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 9:15 AM
Comment #402277

Two additional things I want to share. Firstly, here is the statement from State Department Spokesman John Kirby that was released yesterday. Notably, the State Department has only claimed that the documents ought to be classified today, but there is no comment as to whether they were considered classified at the time they were sent or received. Additionally, Kirby backs up Clinton’s claim, “These documents were not marked as classified at the time they were sent”.

In other news, Adam Shiff, ranking member of the House intelligence Committee continues to endorse Clinton for President. Given that he has the privilege of reading all the emails now deemed classified, why on Earth would he endorse her candidacy? He has zero reason to play along with Clinton’s ambition. Surely, he would put party before personality if he had to.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 9:29 AM
Comment #402280

Warren

Sometimes the very fact that a high official discusses it makes it classified. For example, if the Secretary and the President discuss a news story about an incident in a foreign country, it indicates the higher level of interest. This insider information is useful to our enemies.

As I wrote many times, even if nothing she intended or even nothing she did caused the problem, she created the vulnerability. That is enough to break the law and it is unethical to do it generally.

I am becoming increasingly angry with Hillary. I never had a very high opinion of her. I think her intelligence is overrated. She is one of the smart - but not brilliant - girls who works hard and gets good grades but really doesn’t get it. But that is not why I am angry. There are lots of dilettantes like Hillary.

What makes me angry is the serial mendacity. She disregarded procedures that protect our country. And she did it mostly for silly little reason of her own convenience. She is pissing on honest and patriotic people who worked in foreign affairs and the military.

General Petraeus, who is an honest and patriotic man who server his country 1000 times better than Hillary, got in trouble for doing much less than she did. The honorable thing would be for her to admit to her actions, not try to obfuscate and take what comes. But Hillary has no honor.

Posted by: C&J at January 30, 2016 10:27 AM
Comment #402282

Warped, After all the publicity about the Drone Program I think it is safe to say it has been declassified.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 30, 2016 12:35 PM
Comment #402283
Sometimes the very fact that a high official discusses it makes it classified. For example, if the Secretary and the President discuss a news story about an incident in a foreign country, it indicates the higher level of interest. This insider information is useful to our enemies.

If so, then this would be quite damning. I appreciate your perspective. I have colleagues who utilize classified material. Data from spy satellites are used in some forecasting models. There’s definitely a lot of I need to consider before ever asking to be entrusted with such data.

As I wrote many times, even if nothing she intended or even nothing she did caused the problem, she created the vulnerability. That is enough to break the law and it is unethical to do it generally.
Sorry to circle around this issue again, but the crucial thing being referred to here is Clinton’s decision to forgo a @State.gov email on the “open-net” system, substituting her own private system. Now, as far as classified documents go, the distinction between the two systems is meaningless. Classified messages belong on neither and Clinton would be just as criminally liable if everything had taken place on the “open-net” @state.gov system. The fact that the government claims that their own system has greater security is immaterial if it isn’t suited for classified things. That said, it is apparent that if Clinton had not chosen personal convenience over her duties as SoS, her email account would not be scrutinized as it is now.
General Petraeus, who is an honest and patriotic man who server his country 1000 times better than Hillary, got in trouble for doing much less than she did.
I don’t know why you say this. While Clinton’s misdeeds might be egregious, Petraeus’ actions are far worse. Petraeus took documents that were clearly marked as classified and gave them to Paula Broadwell a woman who had zero business handling them. At worst, Clinton showed interest in a couple of drone attacks on a an unsecured system, but she never deliberately allowed anyone access to anything classified. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 12:59 PM
Comment #402284
After all the publicity about the Drone Program I think it is safe to say it has been declassified.

The issue at hand is that legally speaking, it hasn’t. This is why Clinton is in trouble in the first place.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 1:00 PM
Comment #402285

WP; “Always a lawyer, HRC is too smart to actually lie.”

Big Lie. I have documented some of her lies on WB.

Don’t forget, Bill had his law license suspended for five years for lying under oath.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 30, 2016 1:49 PM
Comment #402287

Warren

“the distinction between the two systems is meaningless” - it is NOT. It shifts the locus of responsibility. Open net is monitored. If you inadvertently use it for classified, you will be warned. If you try to plug a uncleared flash drive, you will be stopped. If you try to download unauthorized software that may include spyware, the system will not allow you. Lots of these things are handled for you by professionals IF you use opennet.

If you choose the use your own server, you take on ALL that responsibility. It becomes all your fault. Hillary is all to blame. When she says she is not, she is either very stupid or dishonest. There is no way she looks good on this.

Re Paula Broadwell - she has a clearance. She was not entitled to those particular documents. That is like any of the Clinton aids. And it is a real crime to talk to Sydney Blumenthal, who was just a private citizen.

Posted by: C&J at January 30, 2016 2:08 PM
Comment #402288

RF,
Sorry, but your defamation was debunked a long time ago. The Clintons are lawyers, not saints. They have mislead the public with fibs and exaggerations. Nonetheless, Hillary has never perpetuated an egregiously fraudulent claim. The worst she has done is exaggerate the risks posed by her trip to Bosnia. Meanwhile under oath, Bill Clinton denied engaging in a variety of activities with Monica Lewinsky, but fellatio was not one of them. Thus, he mislead the court without lying and for this reason his license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for 5 years.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 2:21 PM
Comment #402289

WP: “They (The Clintons) have mislead the public with fibs and exaggerations.”

Warren has a cozy fuzzy relationship between his mind and his morality. A child may find a distinction between a lie, a fib, and an exaggeration. Adults should know better.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 30, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #402290
Open net is monitored. If you inadvertently use it for classified, you will be warned. If you try to plug a uncleared flash drive, you will be stopped. If you try to download unauthorized software that may include spyware, the system will not allow you. Lots of these things are handled for you by professionals IF you use opennet.

If you choose the use your own server, you take on ALL that responsibility. It becomes all your fault. Hillary is all to blame. When she says she is not, she is either very stupid or dishonest. There is no way she looks good on this.

Personally, I think that employees ought to be responsible for their actions on the open net. From what I have read, the law doesn’t make these distinctions. If it isn’t designed for classified information, then classified information shouldn’t be there. Period.

she has a clearance. She was not entitled to those particular documents. That is like any of the Clinton aids. And it is a real crime to talk to Sydney Blumenthal, who was just a private citizen.

I have seen zero allegations that Clinton’s communication with Blumenthal contained classified documents. In fact, nearly all the rumors I have read allege that the allegedly classified emails are nearly all messages sent TO Clinton rather than FROM Clinton. Again, it is her server so she is responsible. The relevant messages come from Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, people who had every right to review classified information as they were Clinton’s closets advisers.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that while Petraeus demonstrated intent when he broke the law, Clinton has show nothing of the sort. Even Petraeus’ prosecutor disagrees with the allegation that Clinton’s sins are comparable to Petraeus’.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 2:56 PM
Comment #402291
distinction between a lie, a fib, and an exaggeration. Adults should know better.

Distinguishing between lies, fibs and exaggerations is exactly what lawyers do. This is why Clinton was not removed from office despite being impeached. From a legal standpoint, he did not lie.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #402292

From a legal standpoint, he did not lie.
Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 3:05 PM

LOL…from a legal standpoint, he had his license suspended for…for…for…lying under oath.

Get a grip on reality Warren, and stop this nonsensical parsing.

America’s secrets in the hands of an enemy can cause death and carnage for individuals as well as a nation. Treating them so casually disqualifies the offender from any position of trust. Such persons should be chastised and shunned.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 30, 2016 3:22 PM
Comment #402293

“Hillary Clinton’s defense of her conduct is now reduced to technicalities; the State Department looks to be slow-walking the release of her e-mails with an eye on the campaign calendar — and the White House seems to know a bit too much about an unfolding investigation.

It’s almost like a coordinated coverup.”


http://nypost.com/2016/01/29/hillarys-lame-excuses-for-her-e-mail-misconduct-are-crumbling/

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 30, 2016 3:54 PM
Comment #402294

Warren

You ARE responsible for you activities on open-net but there is a back stop. That is why they want you to use it. It help insure that you just don’t make stupid mistakes. And it is a check on those who might be more than stupid. When you sign on, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy. That is on purpose. When you work for the G, you are supposed to respect them.

Re Clinton with Blumenthal - she was discussing policy toward Libya and other things. This should NEVER appear in an unclassified document. She was Secretary of State. She should have acted like one. When she sat in George Marshall’s chair, she disgraced his legacy.

Re intent - she showed intent when she set up her server. She intended to avoid scrutiny. She succeeded in subverting the system for her own convenience and political gain. There is nothing admirable about this woman.

Posted by: C&J at January 30, 2016 3:59 PM
Comment #402295
LOL…from a legal standpoint, he had his license suspended for…for…for…lying under oath.

The Senate had a trial. Bill Clinton was acquitted on the charge of perjury. The matter is finished. Americans know what happened and will make their decisions accordingly. If they do not feel that someone married to someone with Bill Clinton’s sins cannot be President, then that is their judgement.

America’s secrets in the hands of an enemy can cause death and carnage for individuals as well as a nation. Treating them so casually disqualifies the offender from any position of trust. Such persons should be chastised and shunned.

Absolutely. However, neither you nor I know the contents of the emails that were redacted. We do not know if these are “America’s secrets” or innocuous messages that are simply the victims of a petty bureaucracy. We have a procedure for sorting out what happened and I am persuaded that they will reach the correct conclusion. I refuse to convict Clinton on the basis of prejudice and partisanship.

Clinton has been adamant that nothing on her server was ever marked classified. Thus far, statements by investigators have only affirmed Clinton’s claim. This includes yesterday’s statement by John Kirby, which bolsters her credibility. This leads me to trust her when she expresses confidence that the controversial messages ought not to be classified. It’s not just me; even members of Congress who have access to Clinton’s redacted emails continue to endorse her candidacy for the Democratic nomination.

Let me reiterate: I already believe that the decision to use the private server already reflects upon Clinton’s poor judgement. Being President is all about making good decisions, even when no one is watching. Details are important. On this test, Clinton failed; she will receive my support in neither the Democratic Primary or the general election.

Nevertheless, I will defend the integrity of our justice system when I feel it is appropriate. This means I will debunk unproven claims about Clinton, such as the libelous screed from the NY Post that you shared:

At a minimum, there’s this: In just 11 months, the Clinton camp’s defense has gone from claiming “no classified” material was ever on her private server to insisting nothing “marked” classified was there to telling America that, well, it’s all “overclassified.”

Excuse me? Clinton’s campaign has been consistent: They claim that no material on her server was considered classified at the time the messages were sent or received. Likewise, her camp has maintained that nothing marked classified ever was on the server. This allegation that the story has changed is nothing but malarkey.

Otherwise, the article is a hit piece. No new facts are disclosed. No insightful conclusions reached. Only baseless accusations are leveled.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 6:28 PM
Comment #402296

I fear people are wasting their time discussing the Clinton issue with WP. Anyone who can’t see the change in America’s morality in the past 50-60 years is incapable of understanding what Clinton did that was wrong. He is a typical leftist parser of words. I guess he just reflects the common core education offered today.

Posted by: Blaine at January 30, 2016 7:21 PM
Comment #402297

Did Clinton demonstrate poor judgement? Absolutely, it was wrong for her to create use the server and she should not be elected president.

Conservatives are pulling the wool over Americans’ eyes with a bait & switch. Clinton is guilty of one sin, therefore she is guilty of another is their logic. Fortunately, that is not how our justice system works.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 7:42 PM
Comment #402299

Wait until they get to the Clinton Foundations issues. It just keeps on ticking.

Posted by: tom humes at January 30, 2016 8:30 PM
Comment #402300

The Clintons are liars and deceivers. How many lies does it take to make a person a liar…one, two, three, or is it a life that is built on lies and deception? Warped Reality will no doubt be seen for the young fool he is by the unfolding events. Once the hammer begins to fall on the Clinton coronation; her whole world will crumble. Why is it that Obama has not thrown his support behind her with only 10 months until the presidential elections? He is waiting to see what happens. C&J could very well be right that she all of a sudden steps down for health reasons. “Conservatives are pulling the wool over American’s eyes”…what a silly comment. This is the same argument that Clinton uses for her own demise…”a vast right wing conspiracy”. Do you know how silly that sounds? With leftist, it’s always blame someone else for their own failings. Hillary blamed the Clinton women for Bill’s infidelities, Obama has been blaming Bush for the results of the past 7 years of his presidency, and now Hillary is blaming a vast right wing conspiracy for her own violation of the law. It is Obama’s justice department and FBI that is declaring her to be in violation of the law. Oh how the mighty crumble…

Posted by: Blaine at January 30, 2016 11:36 PM
Comment #402301
The Clintons are liars and deceivers. How many lies does it take to make a person a liar…one, two, three, or is it a life that is built on lies and deception?

Are all lies of the same severity? Every prominent Republican candidate is guilty of lies far more egregious than anything HRC has done. I think we all know that to a zeroth order approximation, being a liar is prerequisite to being a politician. Exaggeration is ubiquitous in the profession.

Why is it that Obama has not thrown his support behind her with only 10 months until the presidential elections?
Why didn’t George W. Bush endorse John McCain until March 5, 2008? Why didn’t Ronald Reagan endorse George H.W. Bush until May 12, 1988?

On the other hand, people who know the content of Clinton’s redacted emails (Adam Schiff and Diane Feinstein) continue to endorse her for President.

C&J could very well be right that she all of a sudden steps down for health reasons.
Maybe. I would be surprised if she manages to get the Democratic nomination. She was repudiated by the electorate 8 years ago due to her poor judgement. Nothing she has done since then has indicated that anything has changed.
“Conservatives are pulling the wool over American’s eyes”…what a silly comment
Of course, you never even attempt to address my points. Instead, opting to deflect the allegation, you argue against a strawman of your own creation. My comment alleged bait-and-switch, not conspiracy.
It is Obama’s justice department and FBI that is declaring her to be in violation of the law.
Hold your horses. No one has been declared in violation of the law. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 31, 2016 12:46 PM
Comment #402302

Warped, A lie is a Lie period. Even the smallest of lies hurts someone.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at January 31, 2016 1:26 PM
Comment #402303

Warped Reality says, “Of course, you never even attempt to address my points. Instead, opting to deflect the allegation, you argue against a strawman of your own creation.”

Pray tell Warped, what are you doing when:

1. Your answer to the Clinton lies is to talk about all politicians lying.

2. Your answer to Obama not throwing his support for Clinton, is to talk about who and when the Republican presidents supported someone.

Is this also an attempt to deflect the allegation?

Hillary’s lies place American’s in danger and kill others.

Posted by: Blaine at January 31, 2016 2:25 PM
Comment #402319
A lie is a Lie period. Even the smallest of lies hurts someone.
From a moral standpoint you are mostly right. Scenarios where lies do more good than harm are uncommon and are generally applicable to our political discussion. I confess that there might be a person who may have been duped into supporting Hillary Clinton’s previous campaign on the basis of her lie about the trip to Bosnia.

However, there is a problem here whereby we are making false equivalences. The harm posed by an exaggerated story about Bosnia is minuscule when compared with the lies that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton has told lies in the past and so has Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, but the nature and scope of these lies cannot be compared.

Calling Hillary Clinton a liar does us all a disservice as it clouds the problem we face with real liars who are actually dangerous such as al-Janabi. In order to avoid the false equivalence fallacy, I do not call her a liar even if the term is technically true.

Is this also an attempt to deflect the allegation?

#1: The allegation at hand is that Hillary Clinton is lying when she claims that she is not guilty of mishandling classified information. Conservatives say they believe the allegation is true because they believe Hillary Clinton is more likely to tell lies than other politicians. I countered this claim by stating that Hillary Clinton tells lies at a rate no greater than most politicians, which you think is a deflection when it actually strikes at the heart of your assertions. In summary my argument is this:
A) Hillary Clinton does not tell any more lies than most politicians.
B) We would trust most politicians to tell the truth in these circumstances
C) Therefore, we should trust her as much as we would trust a random politician, which means we should trust her to tell the truth.

#2 You began complaining about the lack of an endorsement last August. In formal terms, you make the following argument:
A) Candidates who win their party’s nomination are endorsed at least (10 months to 15 months) before the election by the incumbent President when they are of the same party.
B) Hillary Clinton has not yet received Obama’s endorsement even though they are of the same party and it is fewer than 15 months until the election.
C) Therefore, Clinton is not going to win her party’s nomination.

Your argument is fallacious because the first premise is false. I provided two counter-examples that demonstrated instances where premise A did not hold.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 31, 2016 5:41 PM
Comment #402321

The conclusion of your logic is based upon the fact that you did the very thing you accused me of…the deflection of allegations.

Posted by: Blaine at January 31, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #402322

Warren, was Hillary acting as a politician when she may have lied about emails and contribution funds to the Clinton Criminal Foundation? Or, was she acting as a high administration cabinet official charged with affairs of State?

You do understand the different standard I would assume?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment #402323

No, he doesn’t. The only thing he understands is that she will never be elected, therefore he says he would never vote for her…but, he will continue to defend the lying b***h with his last breath simply because she is a leftist Democrat. WP understands exactly how corrupt she is, but would never admit it. Let’s just blame the Republicans…

Posted by: Blaine at January 31, 2016 8:09 PM
Comment #402325

Royal Flush,

There isn’t any evidence to demonstrate that Hillary lied about either her emails or the Clinton Foundation. If such evidence were to appear, then it would demolish her credibility. It would surpass the fibs politicians typically tell and rise to the level of al-Janabi’s sins.

Blaine,
It must be strange to live in the bizarre world inhabited by the conservative brain. To assert that my succinct refutation of your claims was a deflection is simply incredible.

Conservatives,
No matter how many times you play the “Hillary is a liar” card, you come up short. The only lie with an ounce of malice Hillary has definitely told is the one regarding her trip to Bosnia as First Lady. All other claimed “lies” brought up here has amounted to nothing.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 31, 2016 9:16 PM
Comment #402331

If you mean being able to see through the fog of leftist ideology; or being able to understand beyond the daily spoon feeding of BS by the MSM; then yes, I guess it would seem to you to be bizarre to live in a the world of a conservative mindset.

Posted by: Blaine at February 1, 2016 12:14 AM
Comment #402333

Yet another deflection. How pathetic is it that many comments later, Blaine still hasn’t addressed the points that I have raised. Opting to focus on personal insults instead of substantive issues, Blain demonstrates the inadequacies of his thought process. At least he always have plenty of Kool-aid to drown out his woes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 1, 2016 8:04 AM
Comment #402336

Hillary regarding the emails

Darn, and it really, really seemed like you guys had her this time. But wait, you might still be able to do your “happy dance”. It is not over yet, stay tuned.

From the article Hillary was quoted as saying “we need to let this inquiry run its course”. And this is exactly what all of the conservative and republicans have been saying all along. Wait, no they haven’t. They haven’t said that at all.

I wonder if this news dump on the Friday before the Iowa caucus will affect the outcome. I am sure it wasn’t intended to do that but was merely a coincidence? We shall see.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 1, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #402339

S4A,

We can criticize these leaks until the cows come home. It still doesn’t change whether the emails on her server contain information that should have been classified. Although we don’t know for sure, my guess is that the CIA is upset that these “classified” emails finally confirmed the existence of our drone program. Until now, the CIA has maintained an official state of plausible deniability.

If my guess is right, I honestly do not know what to make of it. Clinton would have clearly violated the rules by discussing classified information on an unsecured network, but it is truly the most innocuous violation of security protocol that I can think of. All I can say is that it is insane to nominate this woman when so many well-qualified Democrats exist as alternatives. What advantage does HRC bring to the race that Andrew Cuomo/Jerry Brown/Deval Patrick/Martin O’Malley cannot? It’s not like HRC’s tenure as SoS was anything other than average.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 1, 2016 5:12 PM
Comment #402340

Well, I don’t know WP; do you reckon Hillary is the “candidate” because the Democratic Party gets all tingly when her name is mentioned? So instead of supporting the first woman candidate, you are asking for a bunch of white guys.

Posted by: Blaine at February 1, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment #402341

Well, I don’t know WP; do you reckon Hillary is the “candidate” because the Democratic Party gets all tingly when her name is mentioned? So instead of supporting the first woman candidate, you are asking for a bunch of white guys. By the way, why should I discuss your points, when they make no sense?

Posted by: Blaine at February 1, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #402342

Her and Bill are very good politicians, I am certain that if you researched this you could find their reasons but you probably wouldn’t agree with them. I have not yet made up my mind but would have no problem voting for Hillary if she is the eventual nominee. Sanders really seems to be gaining some support in Iowa. Tackling the student debt problem is getting him traction with young voters. I’m not sure he could sustain that in a national election.

A lot of these “classification” squabbles come down to a urinating contest between departments and agencies, that really don’t interest me much. Having had experience in the area, if you haven’t compromised your clearance by accepting gratuities or being black mailed, then generally the protocols are reformed to make certain future infractions are kept from happening. I know there are some here that will disagree with my assessment, I have no problem with that. I will wait to see what happens and make my decision with that in mind.

You have attempted to present an argument without supporting either the contention of wrong doing or the individual accused. It has made some good reading.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 1, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #402343

Warren

Repeating again - whether or not it SHOULD have been classified does not matter. Hillary does not have the right to disseminate it no matter what and an experienced and intelligent official would have recognized it even if it was unmarked. In any case, State, not CIA, had deemed some email so sensitive that it cannot be released even years later.

In the local terms, we would say that Hillary has screwed the pooch.

Posted by: C&J at February 1, 2016 6:59 PM
Comment #402344

C&J,

I understand that the matter of over-classification is immaterial to whether Hillary is indicted, but I still feel that the scandal can serve as a catalyst to reform the practice to prevent people from being ensnared in the future.

I would find it troubling if intelligence officials retroactively classified her comments as top secret merely because they confirmed the existence of the well-publicized drone program. How about you?

In addition, I wonder what you think about Jake Sullivan’s future. He is widely believed to be Hillary’s top choice for National Security Adviser if she wins the Presidency. Do you think he has prospects in a hypothetical Biden or Sanders administration? Or will his role in the email scandal imperil his future too?

Lastly, I wonder what parallels can be drawn between Hillary’s situation and that of Richard Armitage, who also mishandled classified information but much more egregious consequences, yet faced neither indictment nor prosecution. I don’t even know if he had his security clearance revoked.

S4A,
I am rooting for Bernie to do well tonight. Hopefully it will induce Bloomberg to run. I lived on Long Island when he was mayor and NYC always seemed to be well run. I’d love to see that sort of competence in the White House.

I would be careful dismissing the classification issue as a mere pissing contest with the recent revelation from the State Department. This was the first time State agreed with the other departments on the classification issue. Those 22 emails are going to stay out of the public eye for a very long time. With those 22 emails, there is no longer an inter-agency dispute as to their current status. The only matter that is unresolved is their status when originally sent (or received).

You have attempted to present an argument without supporting either the contention of wrong doing or the individual accused. It has made some good reading.
Always glad to be at your service, sir. I truly believe Democrats are making a catastrophic mistake if they nominate Hillary Clinton. The ’90s were miserable with their constant drama and scandals. The American people deserve better than to relive that. Pick someone we are absolutely sure has no skeletons in her closet (or email server). Posted by: Warren Porter at February 1, 2016 10:03 PM
Comment #402346

Warren

I doubt they were “retroactively” classified. They are classified because of their nature. State is the one that won’t let them out. I think Hillary is lying about the type of thing. They would not classify an article from the NYT and if it mostly refereed to that, it could be published and redacted. Whatever it is that are keeping, it must be big.

Armitage did not mishandle classified information. If you are talking about Plame, she was not under cover at that time. It was more bad manners or bad form than a violation.

Posted by: C&J at February 1, 2016 11:14 PM
Comment #402351
They would not classify an article from the NYT and if it mostly refereed to that, it could be published and redacted. Whatever it is that are keeping, it must be big.

Fair enough. I see your point. Ultimately, all will be revealed in due time. Still, if this all ends up being about comments on a NYC article about drones, I will find it quite disturbing.

Armitage did not mishandle classified information. If you are talking about Plame, she was not under cover at that time. It was more bad manners or bad form than a violation.

Uh, this is completely wrong. Not to mention the fact that Armitage’s leak completely ruined the credibility of anyone who had ever done business with Brewster Jennings & Associates.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 2, 2016 12:31 AM
Post a comment