True. On the other hand there's "My email would have been used for political purposes against me, which is why (long list of politicians in both parties, including the most of the Bush II White House) also bypassed the official servers."Vrede too wrote:The IG and FBI quoting ads haven't started yet, and Hillary isn't going to have good answers to them. "I wasn't indicted" probably won't cut it.
Then, there are the real or perceived lies and coverup.Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse
... Then there is the argument, which (her press secretary) Fallon makes above, that Clinton was far from the first secretary of state to use less-than-airtight methods to ensure the preservation and security of her email correspondence. As the IG report makes clear, she wasn’t. Again, Helderman and Hamburger:
The 83-page report reviews email practices by five secretaries of state and generally concludes that recordkeeping has been spotty for years.
It was particularly critical of former secretary of state Colin Powell — who has acknowledged publicly that he used a personal email account to conduct business — concluding that he too failed to follow department policy designed to comply with public-record laws.
There are two very important differences among Clinton, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, and former secretaries Powell and Condoleezza Rice when it comes to email practices.
The first is that Clinton is the first and, to date, only secretary of state to exclusively use a private email address and server to conduct her business as the nation’s top diplomat. All of the other names above maintained both a private and a government-issued email address. That alone doesn’t make her guilty. But it does make her unique.
Second, Clinton is the only one of that group who is currently (a) running for president and (b) the very likely nominee for one of the country’s two major parties.
Because of her elevated status in our political world, she is — and should be — subject to more scrutiny than, say, Powell, who hasn’t voiced an interest in running for president in 20 years. That’s particularly true because Clinton has put her time at State at the center of her argument for why she should be elected the 45th president of the United States. Look at what I have done and judge me by it, she says. That has to include the bad as well as the good.
This is a bad day for Clinton’s presidential campaign. Period. For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder. No one will come out of this news cycle — with the exception of the hardest of the hard-core Clinton people — believing she is a better bet for the presidency on May 25 than she was on May 23.
Clinton remains blessed that Republicans are on the verge of nominating Donald Trump, a candidate whose numbers on honesty, trustworthiness and even readiness to lead are worse — and in some cases, far worse — than hers. But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.
It's really, really gonna suck if banni's topic turns out to be prescient, but it's not manifested until Nov. 8.Hillary Clinton’s email problems might be even worse than we thought
Here’s the good news for Hillary Clinton: The FBI has recommended that no charges be brought following its investigation of the former secretary of state's private email server.
Here’s the bad news: Just about everything else.
FBI Director James B. Comey dismantled large portions of Clinton's long-told story about her private server and what she sent or received on it during a stirring 15-minute news conference, after which he took no questions. While Comey exonerated Clinton, legally speaking, he provided huge amounts of fodder that could badly hamstring her in the court of public opinion.
Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.
Comey condemned Clinton and her top aides as “extremely careless” in how they handled classified information during her time as the head of the State Department, adding: Any reasonable person … should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for that sort of information.
There was more — much more. Comey said Clinton had used not one but multiple private email servers during her time at State. He said Clinton used multiple email devices during that time. (She had offered her desire to use a single device for “convenience” as the main reason she set up the private server.) ... He argued that the Clinton lawyers had deleted emails they marked as personal that contained professional content, and that while the FBI found some of those emails in its investigation, it was certainly possible more existed that they were unable to track down.
It’s worth remembering at this point that Clinton and her team deleted more emails than they turned over to the State Department.
It’s hard to read Comey’s statement as anything other than a wholesale rebuke of the story Clinton and her campaign team have been telling ever since the existence of her private email server came to light in spring 2015. She did send and receive classified emails. The setup did leave her — and the classified information on the server — subject to a possible foreign hack. She and her team did delete emails as personal that contained professional information.
Those are facts, facts delivered by the Justice Department of a Democratic administration. And those facts run absolutely counter to the narrative put forth by the Clinton operation: that this whole thing was a Republican witch-hunt pushed by a bored and adversarial media....
For a candidate already badly struggling on questions of whether she is honest and trustworthy enough to hold the office to which she aspires, Comey’s comments are devastating. Watching them, I could close my eyes and imagine them spliced into a bevy of 30-second ads — all of which end with the FBI director rebuking Clinton as “extremely careless.”
... Still, all things considered, this is a very bad day for the Clinton campaign. It’s not the worst outcome (indictment), but it badly disrupts her attempts to move beyond the email server story as she seeks to unite the party in advance of the Democratic convention later this month. And it suggests the email issue will haunt her all the way through Election Day on Nov. 8.
Yup. But then that could backfire on Trump. What with his various outright scams like Trump University, his refusal to release his tax records after many claims that he would, and many of his claims.But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.
"From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."O Really wrote:For Hillary-haters, it will never end. For most everyone else, <yawn>
However, it would be helpful to know the general content of the "110 classified" emails. Hillary says she didn't send or receive any that were marked confidential at the time. Maybe, maybe not.
Not, she lied.
"I’m confident that this process will prove that I never sent nor received any email that was marked classified."
-- Hillary Clinton
But without knowing something about the content, those found in the witch-hunt investigation to be classified might have been anything from the nuclear codes to her travel schedule. That would make a difference as to whether being "careless" is awful or not.
Agreed.rstrong wrote:Yup. But then that could backfire on Trump. What with his various outright scams like Trump University, his refusal to release his tax records after many claims that he would, and many of his claims.But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.
Hillary, for all that she comes across as dishonest, still doesn't seem more dishonest than ANYONE in the 2016 or 2012 Republican clown cars. And far more honest than many of them.
Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got much worse
... Clinton remains blessed that Republicans are on the verge of nominating Donald Trump, a candidate whose numbers on honesty, trustworthiness and even readiness to lead are worse — and in some cases, far worse — than hers. But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.
It kinda sucks to be an American this year. Not that this is the worst thing ever by any means, but we usually have an opposition to be proud of.Hillary Clinton’s email problems might be even worse than we thought
... The best thing Clinton may have going for her at this point is that Republicans are two weeks away from formally picking Donald Trump as their party’s presidential nominee. Trump has shown a unique ability to hog the national spotlight and make comments that make people wonder whether he is fit to be president. While Clinton’s image numbers are bad, Trump’s are worse....
The problem I have with those two articles, once again, is that they try to gloss over the fact that Hillary's email use was nothing unusual for both parties at the time.Vrede too wrote:It kinda sucks to be an American this year. Not that this is the worst thing ever by any means, but we usually have an opposition to be proud of.
Anyhow, I get the nuances, many Americans won't. There's an accurate narrative that the Clintons play by different rules than most pols and get away with it, at least the pols that haven't resigned in shame or been jailed.rstrong wrote:... The first one points out correctly, while trying to make more if it, is that the only major difference
It cites a second one - "The first is that Clinton is the first and, to date, only secretary of state to exclusively use a private email address and server to conduct her business as the nation’s top diplomat. All of the other names above maintained both a private and a government-issued email address."
is that Hillary is now running for President.
. . . and knew that she would be at the time. Boneheaded, as I said, regardless of any nefarious intent.
The second one should put scare quotes around the pie chart: Hillary was ALLOWED to delete her personal emails (and spam), and her predecessor (Colin Powell) and others did the same.
Rice was her predecessor, not that it affects your point.
I believe that there were policy changes after Shrub left and that Hillary violated commitments to Obama and ones made by Obama to America, but I can't remember the details.
Obviously she shouldn't have been using her own server. But the REAL interesting question is, why was it common for both parties to avoid government servers? The answer of course is obvious: In 40,000 emails - made available to one's political enemies - there's no chance that there WON'T be something incriminating for even the most honest of politicians....
Would they have already been released to the public? I don't know. Have Powell's and Rice's non-confidential emails come out and when did that happen? Ironically, what she did brought more attention to her emails, not less.
This week should have been entirely Trump's. Instead, the moron is defending his antisemitic tweet and spewing wussy "sheriff's badge" denials. If Hillary wins she'll owe GOP voters a huge debt of gratitude.rstrong wrote:Yup. But then that could backfire on Trump. What with his various outright scams like Trump University, his refusal to release his tax records after many claims that he would, and many of his claims.But Trump’s task of casting her as “Crooked Hillary” just got easier.
Hillary, for all that she comes across as dishonest, still doesn't seem more dishonest than ANYONE in the 2016 or 2012 Republican clown cars. And far more honest than many of them.
As will we all!Vrede too wrote:. If Hillary wins she'll owe GOP voters a huge debt of gratitude.
Makes sense, administrative rules of evidence and sanctions are different, and not being a criminal is not necessarily being a good employee.State Department reopens Clinton emails probe
The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Although the former secretary of state's closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.
The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." It was suspended in April so as not to interfere with the FBI's inquiry. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the probe is restarting after the Justice Department's announcement Wednesday that it won't bring any criminal charges....
Would getting elected get Hillary her security clearance back?But Kirby said this week former officials can still face punishment. Options range from counseling and warnings to the revocation of an individual's security clearance....
I was joking.
. 
Ala the Shrub picture of "miss me yet?"Vrede too wrote:"pictures of" what?
Not yet, there's still Nov.bannination wrote:Welp, guess I was wrong.
Ah. Arguably gonna be useful regardless of what happens in Nov.GoCubsGo wrote:Ala the Shrub picture of "miss me yet?"
O Really wrote:... I don't know why, but the demographics of the main MSN site (msn.com)- or at least those who participate in the surveys - tend to run toward older males with a rightward tilt, some of whom undoubtedly are Trumpers.
O Really wrote:Here's today's question:
How will the FBI’s statement on Hillary Clinton’s email issue affect her campaign?
26%It will help
22%It will hurt
52%It won’t make any difference
That's 78% of a right-leaning group thinking it won't do any damage. Follow your man Bernie's advice: "don't care about the damn emails..."
Note: I raised questions about the MSN poll on page 3. Some, at least, would also apply to this ABC/Wapo poll that's worse for Hillary.
