2016 Presidential Horse Race

[GoIrish41]

I apologize if you took me to be attacking you personally...I need to do better at qualifying those kind of statements...my point was more about the general narrative I'm hearing, reading.

I don't think the risks associated with Mrs. Clinton's conduct are considered...and that becomes more clear when folks see Petreaus' conduct as "worse". How are we measuring "worse"...conduct that endangers this country, and its operators, or conduct that leads to prosecution or not.

Sure I can make a damn good argument that Clinton's is worse if only the near real time nature her communications became exposed...but I'd be happy if folks just looked at the thing and said...both Petreaus and Clinton did a disservice to this country with their conduct...

Of that there is no doubt.

 

[Emcee77]

All that means is that Comey doesn't know every word of Clinton's Benghazi testimony.

Clinton in Benghazi testimony: My house is blue.

Comey: Our investigation reveals that Hillary Clinton's house is white, but I cannot confirm whether Hillary Clinton lied to the House because we haven't investigated whether she ever said her house was a color other than white.

Thus, Comey's testimony confirms that she lied without him saying "she lied."

Ha, well, there is some truth in what you are saying, and it may well turn out that she lied, but let me just point out that as you have represented it, all Clinton did is say something that is inaccurate, which is NOT enough to get a perjury conviction.

Perjury means saying something inaccurate under oath that you KNOW is inaccurate. If it is true, as Comey has suggested in his limited remarks so far, that only "portions" of a "small number" of emails were marked classified, it is possible that Hillary genuinely overlooked those emails when she testified before Congress. It won't be an easy case to prove, and it is not proven as yet.

This is true although (again if my memory serves me correctly) Chaffitz specifically quoted Clinton's testimony when asked if she ever sent or received e-mails marked classified at the time. According to Chaffitz the Clinton replied that she did not. According to Comey the FBI asked her the same question and she responded yes she did send and recieve e-mails marked as classified. Then Chaffitz asked him why that is not perjury. Comey replied that he could only investigate this if the Congress specifically requested the investigation. At which point Chaffitz replied that they would receive a formal request within hours.

Right.

 

[connor_in]

Comey: Hillary’s FBI Testimony Wasn’t Under Oath Or Recorded, But It Would Still Be a Crime To Lie

 

[kmoose]

Didn't Petraeus willfully hand over classified military information about an ongoing conflict to a woman who he was banging and who was going to use the information to write a book? That seems significantly worse than careless mishandling of classified information that had a potential to be a source for security leaks.

By the same token........... Petraeus had a one time lapse in judgement. Clinton's lapse lasted for 4 years. Again, though......... the issue should not be whether or not she is prosecuted. That's way too subjective. What should NOT be at issue, is that she should lose her security clearance and be ineligible to ever get it back. For 4 years, she completely disregarded best practices for handling classified information and, according to the report:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

and

we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

I don't think the comparison to Petraeus is valid, because the issue should not be that she deserves to be prosecuted, but that she should be required to forfeit her security clearance.

 

[GoIrish41]

By the same token........... Petraeus had a one time lapse in judgement. Clinton's lapse lasted for 4 years. Again, though......... the issue should not be whether or not she is prosecuted. That's way too subjective. What should NOT be at issue, is that she should lose her security clearance and be ineligible to ever get it back. For 4 years, she completely disregarded best practices for handling classified information and, according to the report:



and



I don't think the comparison to Petraeus is valid, because the issue should not be that she deserves to be prosecuted, but that she should be required to forfeit her security clearance.

I don't think the comparison is fair either because what he did was far worse. He knowingly handed classified documents to a person who didn't have the proper clearance. Hillary was careless and put classified information at risk, but didn't knowingly give it to someone who wasn't authorized to have it. By the way, Patraeus didn't have his security clearance formally revoked.

And nobody really knows if Clinton even maintains an active security clearance at the moment. When asked about it, John Kirby, an old acquaintance of mine from my Navy days and current State Department spokesman, refused to comment on the status of her clearance, suggesting State policy precludes discussing an individual's status. There is a chance she already does not have an active clearance. If not, that will all end in November when she will be granted a clearance as President.

 

[Emcee77]

By the same token........... Petraeus had a one time lapse in judgement. Clinton's lapse lasted for 4 years. Again, though......... the issue should not be whether or not she is prosecuted. That's way too subjective. What should NOT be at issue, is that she should lose her security clearance and be ineligible to ever get it back. For 4 years, she completely disregarded best practices for handling classified information and, according to the report:



and



I don't think the comparison to Petraeus is valid, because the issue should not be that she deserves to be prosecuted, but that she should be required to forfeit her security clearance.

This is a really interesting question.

I could be wrong, but I don't think a person who was elected and sworn in as president could be denied a security clearance.

On what basis would any action to deny her a security clearance be taken? Administrative law? But a president is the executive or "administrator" with whom the authority to make administrative law ultimately rests, right? I think a president has the highest security clearance by definition. Or to put it differently, I don't see any means of keeping any sensitive information from her.

If that's true, I do see where the frustration of people who think she should be held accountable for her carelessness comes from. If criminal charges are not feasible, then the only means of holding her accountable is at the ballot box. But the Republicans are running a buffoon who is unlikely to be able to steal many votes from Hillary until her scandals get even worse than they are at present.

 

[irishfan]

Comey: Hillary’s FBI Testimony Wasn’t Under Oath Or Recorded, But It Would Still Be a Crime To Lie

I don't understand how these usually work, but why the hell was her testimony not recorded at the very least? It would also seem mandatory that it be under oath.

 

[RDU Irish]

I don't understand how these usually work, but why the hell was her testimony not recorded at the very least? It would also seem mandatory that it be under oath.

It would not play well for her to burn her hand on a bible at this stage of the election cycle so they decided not to make her touch one.

 

[ACamp1900]

It would not play well for her to burn her hand on a bible at this stage of the election cycle so they decided not to make her touch one.

 

[pkt77242]

I just find it interesting that there is a double standard by some Republicans. When the Petraeus investigation happened, some Republicans thought that he was being unfairly targeted, and remember how former AG Alberto Gonzales only got admonished for keeping classified info at his house.

 

[phgreek]

]I don't think the comparison is fair either because what he did was far worse[/B]. He knowingly handed classified documents to a person who didn't have the proper clearance. Hillary was careless and put classified information at risk, but didn't knowingly give it to someone who wasn't authorized to have it. By the way, Patraeus didn't have his security clearance formally revoked.

And nobody really knows if Clinton even maintains an active security clearance at the moment. When asked about it, John Kirby, an old acquaintance of mine from my Navy days and current State Department spokesman, refused to comment on the status of her clearance, suggesting State policy precludes discussing an individual's status. There is a chance she already does not have an active clearance. If not, that will all end in November when she will be granted a clearance as President.

Far worse in what way? How do you make that determination? What factors are you considering? Totally disagree here that handing some binders over to an assistant w/o clearance is worse than having mass, near real time exposure to official traffic going to Sec State if you were an operator during that period.

 

[GoIrish41]

Far worse in what way? How do you make that determination? What factors are you considering? Totally disagree here that handing some binders over to an assistant w/o clearance is worse than having mass, near real time exposure to official traffic going to Sec State if you were an operator during that period.

What he handed over was information about U.S. military strategy -- troop movements and locations, that sort of thing. And, he did it knowingly. There wasn't a potential breach ... there was an actual breach. What Clinton did was create a situation in which a possible breach could have occurred. I'm certainly not defending her. What she did was screwed up, but intent means something, doesn't it? There is no evidence whatsoever that she intended for information to get into the hands of someone who wasn't authorized to have it.

 

[kmoose]

I don't think the comparison is fair either because what he did was far worse. He knowingly handed classified documents to a person who didn't have the proper clearance. Hillary was careless and put classified information at risk, but didn't knowingly give it to someone who wasn't authorized to have it. By the way, Patraeus didn't have his security clearance formally revoked.

And nobody really knows if Clinton even maintains an active security clearance at the moment. When asked about it, John Kirby, an old acquaintance of mine from my Navy days and current State Department spokesman, refused to comment on the status of her clearance, suggesting State policy precludes discussing an individual's status. There is a chance she already does not have an active clearance. If not, that will all end in November when she will be granted a clearance as President.

I guarantee you that she has some kind of clearance. While the intelligence briefings given to candidates are not the same as the one that POTUS gets, they still receive intelligence briefings.

Where is Grahambo when you need him? He probably has a very good understanding of how the Executive Branch security clearances work...

 

[phgreek]

What he handed over was information about U.S. military strategy -- troop movements and locations, that sort of thing. And, he did it knowingly. There wasn't a potential breach ... there was an actual breach. What Clinton did was create a situation in which a possible breach could have occurred. I'm certainly not defending her. What she did was screwed up, but intent means something, doesn't it? There is no evidence whatsoever that she intended for information to get into the hands of someone who wasn't authorized to have it.

Well...thats not entirely true. She indeed sent classified information to Sydney Blumenthal related to Benghazi and Libya as events played out there. He obviously did not have a clearance, and was materially involved in events in Libya, but was not operating with approval from the US government.

Is it worse to give more sensitive data to a dead end mistress, or less sensitive data to an off the books operative? You decide.

 

[GATTACA!]

Well...thats not entirely true. She indeed sent classified information to Sydney Blumenthal related to Benghazi and Libya as events played out there. He obviously did not have a clearance, and was materially involved in events in Libya, but was not operating with approval from the US government.

Is it worse to give more sensitive data to a dead end mistress, or less sensitive data to an off the books operative? You decide.

It's worse than Blumenthal simply not having clearance, Rahm Emanuel, original chief of staff for President Obama, barred Blumenthal from holding a position in Hillary Clinton's State Department.

 

[EddytoNow]

Partisans will believe what they want to believe about Hillary's e-mails. Hillary supporters will remind everyone that the FBI concluded that no crime was committed. Hillary's detractors will insist that she is hiding something and feel frustrated because they have not been able to catch her committing a crime.

Based upon the FBI's investigation and conclusions, it appears that Hillary was careless or naive regarding the vulnerability of her home server. There has been no evidence that she was giving away classified information to enemies of the USA. Did she create an opportunity for hackers to access her e-mail account? Yes, without a doubt. That's the extent of her guilt. Was classified information obtained from her private server by hackers? Comey stated that there was no evidence that hackers had accessed her account and stolen classified information of any kind.

Representative Cummings questions in today's hearing were insightful. When he asked FBI Director Comey if Congress had requested comparable investigations into other instances where hacking actually occurred, Comey said no such request had been received. Cummings correctly pointed out that the Republican-led Congress was only interested in getting some dirt on Hillary. Their failure to request similar investigations in other cases, where there was actually evidence of hacking, would suggest an ulterior motive - to get Hillary.

When pressured into answering if the FBI had investigated whether Hillary had lied during her Congressional questioning or in one of the presidential primary debates, Comey correctly pointed out that the investigation was limited to whether or not Hillary had committed a crime. All 20 or so FBI staffers involved in the investigation agreed that no prosecutable crime had been committed.

Will the Republicans let this drop? Of course not. If they were interested in correcting the problem they would pass legislation that required all government employees to conduct government business on the government's server, period. All that exists now are policies that if broken are punishable by reprimand, demotion, firing, etc. You don't like the results of FBI investigation? Then get your act together and deal with the problem in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the country by filling the void in the law that allowed it to happen. At the same time, write legislation that clearly defines "Classified Information". What is clear from this whole mess is that not everyone is defining classified information in the same way. How is Hillary or anyone else supposed to know what is classified and what is not when that designation changes over time. Information that was not classified is later determined to be classified, and information that is labelled classified is later determined to not be classified. The whole system has been used by both parties to hide information that they don't want to become public. Much of that information poses no threat to the country. It is just information that might inflame the populace or embarrass a politician or two.

We are in for another four years of partisan bickering. It is clear that neither side wants to actually work out solutions. Compromise has become a dirty word. The political base of both parties is out of control. And the election of Trump or Clinton just assures us that no compromises will be reached on the issues of real importance.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I just find it interesting that there is a double standard by some Republicans. When the Petraeus investigation happened, some Republicans thought that he was being unfairly targeted, and remember how former AG Alberto Gonzales only got admonished for keeping classified info at his house.

It's not a double-standard to think that a particular law is bad, but still should get applied to everyone in the same manner. Arbitrary application of the law is a serious, serious problem. Maybe Comey didn't apply the law here, because he politically refused to apply it to Gonzalez as well. That would suck twice.

I do think the "classifeid" category is WAY too big, and I bet a lot of that stuff was not important at all. But that doesn't mean I should be fine with certain politiians getting to ignore the rules, while other lesser beings are held accountable.

Also, I do not think the Sec. of State should just get to set up a private, unsecure e-mail account so she can control all her own information, destroy what she wants and hand over what she wants. That was the entire point from her perspective, as her e-mails make clear. She ignored the precautions she was supposed to take on classified information so she could control the information the public would get to see. She had FOIA in mind, not aiding the Russians, but the effect was the same. She violated 18 USC 793(f).

That is inidctable, even if a judge or a jury maybe wouldn't convict her.

Based upon the FBI's investigation and conclusions, it appears that Hillary was careless or naive regarding the vulnerability of her home server. There has been no evidence that she was giving away classified information to enemies of the USA. Did she create an opportunity for hackers to access her e-mail account? Yes, without a doubt. That's the extent of her guilt. Was classified information obtained from her private server by hackers? Comey stated that there was no evidence that hackers had accessed her account and stolen classified information of any kind..

No one was ever accusing her of treason! That's all smoke and mirrors.

She is not naive!!! C'mon. She used a home server so she could control the information she handed over after-the-fact. The result was she ended up pushing around a lot of classified information on a minimimnally-secured private network. You can't do that.

Not every opinion that favors one party or another is "partisan."

The reason all of this came up is because of FOIA. Citizens have a right to know what their officials are doing. They don't get to decide what we read and don't read. This all came to light because people were trying to get her records and she simply wasn't turning stuff over, which led to the revelation that she set up her own private system.

Also, this is obviously a unique situation. If a lesser mortal said, "screw the State Department system, you will all e-mail me on my private server," they'd reply, "Dream on."

 

[Domina Nostra]

...

 

[Irish YJ]

Far worse in what way? How do you make that determination? What factors are you considering? Totally disagree here that handing some binders over to an assistant w/o clearance is worse than having mass, near real time exposure to official traffic going to Sec State if you were an operator during that period.

Comey said that P knowingly did it, and admitted it so it was far worse.... Well we all know that H knowingly did what she did, lied, and didn't admit it. So we all just learned that being honest does not pay in DC...

SHOCKER

 

[kmoose]

Partisans will believe what they want to believe about Hillary's e-mails. Hillary supporters will remind everyone that the FBI concluded that no crime was committed. Hillary's detractors will insist that she is hiding something and feel frustrated because they have not been able to catch her committing a crime.

Based upon the FBI's investigation and conclusions, it appears that Hillary was careless or naive regarding the vulnerability of her home server. There has been no evidence that she was giving away classified information to enemies of the USA. Did she create an opportunity for hackers to access her e-mail account? Yes, without a doubt. That's the extent of her guilt.

At this point, the criminal portion has been decided. What people are still upset about is that Hillary Clinton BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY mishandled classified information. THAT is the extent of her guilt, not some naivete or misunderstanding of the rules. She spent FOUR years completely disregarding the rules for safeguarding classified information. What she did was the equivalent of some analyst leaving a bunch of Top Secret documents laying unattended on a table in the lunch room............. EVERY DAY for years.

But she's your girl, so you don't care. If Donald Trump had left a file marked Confidential laying on his desk overnight, liberals would be apoplectic. The Left is really big on accountability, when it involves a cop taking responsibility for making what turns out to be the wrong decision when he is faced with a spilt second life or death choice. But they're all about forgiveness, when one of their own gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: State Department reopens probe of how Hillary Clinton, top aides handled classified information.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/751188139583168512">July 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Looks like one of Hillary's aides will end up taking the fall for this.

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: State Department reopens probe of how Hillary Clinton, top aides handled classified information.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/751188139583168512">July 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Looks like one of Hillary's aides will end up taking the fall for this.

Taking the blame via suicide note?

 

[phgreek]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: State Department reopens probe of how Hillary Clinton, top aides handled classified information.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/751188139583168512">July 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Looks like one of Hillary's aides will end up taking the fall for this.

If the idea is to prevent it in the future ... fine.

But if you are going to hammer someone who typed something up for putting (c) in because that is how it appeared in the document they were told to excerpt in an email...thats bullshit.

If Clinton can't be expected to know WTF (c) means...then how in the hell can a minion? Again, the expectation of competence and fluency in classified matters INCREASES the higher up you go, not the other way around.

If not Hillary...then no one...period. Otherwise, this is not justice...this is some dumb ass sacrifice...and this just gets WORSE in the eyes of the common man.

 

[phgreek]

Comey said that P knowingly did it, and admitted it so it was far worse.... Well we all know that H knowingly did what she did, lied, and didn't admit it. So we all just learned that being honest does not pay in DC...

SHOCKER

well, yea that and "burning" the people's records for four years, and then 30K emails seems to not raise suspicion at all...SMH.

 

[Irish YJ]

well, yea that and "burning" the people's records for four years, and then 30K emails seems to not raise suspicion at all...SMH.

#OligarchyRules!

 

[EddytoNow]

At this point, the criminal portion has been decided. What people are still upset about is that Hillary Clinton BLATANTLY and KNOWINGLY mishandled classified information. THAT is the extent of her guilt, not some naivete or misunderstanding of the rules. She spent FOUR years completely disregarding the rules for safeguarding classified information. What she did was the equivalent of some analyst leaving a bunch of Top Secret documents laying unattended on a table in the lunch room............. EVERY DAY for years.

But she's your girl, so you don't care. If Donald Trump had left a file marked Confidential laying on his desk overnight, liberals would be apoplectic. The Left is really big on accountability, when it involves a cop taking responsibility for making what turns out to be the wrong decision when he is faced with a spilt second life or death choice. But they're all about forgiveness, when one of their own gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

The left does believe in accountability, but at some point you've got to accept the fact that what you thought you might find was not there. How many investigations has the right held on the Clintons? The result is always the same. Political maneuvering behind the scenes? Yes, but no more so than other politicians. Criminal acts? Nothing has been found, and it certainly isn't for the lack of trying. Millions have been spent investigating the Clintons. If you really want to conduct a bipartisan investigation into who is putting classified information at risk, you better investigate every Senator, Congressman, or Bureacrat with any access to the information, and do so with the same determination you went after the Clintons. Let's investigate all of their e-mail and recorded conversations. Let interview all of their staffs. And let's not just do it once, let's do it 8 or 9 times. To single out only Bill or Hillary Clinton every time there is an election, is to invite claims of partisanship.

To get the ball rolling let's begin the indepth, Clinton-like investigations with Donald Trump and those most likely to run for president in the future: Ryan, Booker, Rubio, Castro, Cruz, Kerry, Fiorina, Warren, etc. They have to agree to let a committee led by the other party examine all their e-mails and listen to all their recorded conversations or they are automatically eliminated for consideration for an elected or appointed office.

 

[Rizzophil]

I admit to wanting Dir. Comey to restore our confidence in him and the FBI at this hearing. He and the FBI were put in a very difficult position, and law enforcement has certainly taken a terrible beating recently. It looked for most of the 5 hour non-stop grilling that he might do this. Then it started to fall apart as several revelations came out at the end.

1) First, the FBI did NOT interview HC under oath! This was stunning, even though it is a crime to lie to the FBI, its not the same as when you are under oath.

2) The FBI did not cross check HC's statements to them with her "under oath" testimony to congress. This left members of the committee speechless. When they asked Comey why, he said it was because the congress had not asked him too! They promised to get him this request by the end of the day, but this touches at not only the honesty of the investigation, but its competence.

3) After Comey had said the call not to pursue an indictment was unanimous with those who were a part of the investigation, he then admitted that he had not talked personally to each of those who interviewed Clinton.

4) The Director would not answer whether their investigation extended to The Clinton Foundation. Now this could signal that there is another investigation into this, but it just did not come across in a way that instilled confidence.

5) This all seemed to focus on the classified emails, but no one even asked Comey about the secret emails to her son-in-law about Greece, who happened to lead a hedge fund investing in Greek bonds. Why?

CONCLUSION: Comey seemed to sincerely try to be truthful, but some of his answers were evasive, and others will lead to many more questions. This will likely have many more thinking that this really was a fix all along. as evidenced by the way things unfolded after Bill Clinton's unbelievable meeting with AG Lynch last week.

Congressman Hurd probably had the most important statement of the day when he said he was offended by those who called this "political theater" and were taking the real issue so casually. That is-the security of the United States, and the protection of our state secrets that can put many lives in danger. As a former CIA operative, Hurd had friends die seeking to gain intelligence to help protect us, he was very disturbed by how this whole thing, especially HC getting off completely after this terrible negligence, at best, and how this had done great damage to our national defense.

 

[Irish YJ]

The left does believe in accountability, but at some point you've got to accept the fact that what you thought you might find was not there. How many investigations has the right held on the Clintons? The result is always the same. Political maneuvering behind the scenes? Yes, but no more so than other politicians. Criminal acts? Nothing has been found, and it certainly isn't for the lack of trying. Millions have been spent investigating the Clintons. If you really want to conduct a bipartisan investigation into who is putting classified information at risk, you better investigate every Senator, Congressman, or Bureacrat with any access to the information, and do so with the same determination you went after the Clintons. Let's investigate all of their e-mail and recorded conversations. Let interview all of their staffs. And let's not just do it once, let's do it 8 or 9 times. To single out only Bill or Hillary Clinton every time there is an election, is to invite claims of partisanship.

To get the ball rolling let's begin the indepth, Clinton-like investigations with Donald Trump and those most likely to run for president in the future: Ryan, Booker, Rubio, Castro, Cruz, Kerry, Fiorina, Warren, etc. They have to agree to let a committee led by the other party examine all their e-mails and listen to all their recorded conversations or they are automatically eliminated for consideration for an elected or appointed office.

So the FBI does not recommend charges, but blows up her claims as lies.

 

[yankeehater]

If this election comes down to the independents, Hillary could be in trouble. According to this poll, 63% of them think she should be indicted.

Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Irish YJ]

If this election comes down to the independents, Hillary could be in trouble. According to this poll, 63% of them think she should be indicted.

Most Disagree with Decision Not to Indict Clinton - Rasmussen Reports™

Between Hilldog is Trump, there's one thing I'll bet on... Lowest approval rating in the last 40 years.