Queen of Chaos, The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton

332 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

If the Clinton's affairs had truly been looked into she'd be behind bars. As would Trump. Instead we are treated to an endless wild goose chase of all things Russian.  On the bright side, the empire is crumbling and its death can now be seen on the horizon. But that so-called progressives can still carry water for 'Democrats' after everything those rats have done at home and abroad for the foulest of interests, is dismal indeed. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NDPP wrote:

If the Clinton's affairs had truly been looked into she'd be behind bars.

For what crimes, exactly?

I fully agree that both Clintons are disgusting, careerist assholes, who don't care at all about anyone except themselves. But I am aware of no credible evidence that Hillary has actually committed any crimes during her slimy career.

Bill, on the other hand, is clearly a war criminal for the Iraq sanctions regime, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. But of course, this type of crime is part of normal great power behaviour in the modern era, and will never be punished.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If the Clinton's affairs had truly been looked into she'd be behind bars.

Did you mean "THEY'D" be behind bars?

"Lock HER up!!!!"

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/Far8Hnae7xw

"Hillary has a new excuse on why she lost - capitalism!"

lol

NDPP

Jacobin: From The Jaws of Victory

https://t.co/teLO2MQfxi

"We've read Chasing Hillary so you don't have to. The Clinton campaign was even worse than we thought..."

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/TZ8gwmIU0rs

Hillary is Now A 'Cuomo-Bro' -- Snubs Female Candidate For Male

"Hillary Clinton is supporting Andrew Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon. Didn't Madeleine Albright have something to say about that a little while ago."

 

bekayne

Somebody's obsessed with her.

NDPP

Top stories on CNN and NYT Sport..

JKR

CNN, NYT, and Babble!

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/tiUC5nAlMic

"Hillary Clinton recently received the Radcliffe Award from Harvard."

MapleInTheEye

Mr. Magoo wrote:

In the run-up to election day:  "All the candidates are the same!!  There's no difference!!"

The day after:  "Which morons voted for the worst one??  How could the electorate curse us like this for four years??"

I understand disagreeing with Hillary on policy. She's flip flopped around on some things in the past, she is a politician's politician. She knows how to play politics and pivot in a New York minute when she thinks she has to. She rightfully gets heat for swinging her position based on the electorate's opinion (or the temperature of Congress) instead of faithfully sticking to a principled set of values. I get that level of dislike of her. It is a genuine, policy-driven reason to disagree with Hillary's politics. And its enough of a reason to not vote for her.

But, I will never understand the hateful vitriol spewed at her as if she's some vile putrid arm of the devil himself. It is illogical, it is silly.

Hillary is someone I see as a person who wants to be progressive on many issues, but she feels limited by the system in the US and is unwilling to change it. Case in point: in 1994, I remember viewing the US debate on health care and the Clintons, and Hillary was put in charge of the health care policy, which was quite a feminist move that had never been taken before by a US President allowing his wife to handle a major policy, and it was a more robust, more comprehensive plan than the Obama plan that has been eaten alive by Republicans in recent years. But Hillary's more robust plan never even passed Congress, it was never enacted. It was a huge failure for her and I think it set her on this trajectory of pivoting and watered down policy. Before the health care flop of 1994, she was quite the rabble-rouser, she stuck to her progressive values, and she knew everyone needed a health plan and wasn't afraid to campaign for it back then.

When she was eaten alive over that health plan, while not quite the same as our health plans in Canada, it was still a robust birth-to-death health coverage with a more private market role, but it was a very robust plan. FFW to 2008 when she ran for President herself the first time, she did abandon that. She essentially supported what became 'Obamacare' in the states. It was a watered down, no frills health policy that had some subsidies here, some insurance guarantees there, and wasn't as universal as her original plan.

So, in effect, she was willing to settle and to downgrade her personal preferences. I think this is what made her less palatable among progressives: selling out somewhat on the basis of perceived control or power. She wasn't willing to lose another election because she was seen as too 'far left' and that's why the Bernie crowd wasn't gung ho for her and didn't really come out for her, many even switching to Trump (because in America, when you have no real choices, voters do the darndest things).

America is kind of pathetic: here you have a country with more ability, a vast population to draw revenues from, but with no political will to implement true universal health coverage. I understand Canadian care isn't perfect, I understand the NHS isn't perfect in the UK either. But our systems have fewer imperfections than the US system. Whatever complaints we have about waiting 4 months for a knee replacement, you have tens of millions who can't access it at all (the entire population of Canada altogether) and have to stay on painkillers and use wheelchairs or canes forever. They won't have a choice until they hit 65 and get to Medicare age, or if they find an employer with a robust enough plan to cover it.

Health care is how I define Hillary Clinton, its how she came into Washington in 1994, and its her signature issue. She was no worse than Obama on this front. It is rather sad that in the USA, no matter who wins (even if Bernie won, he couldn't do anything because of Congress and the individual members who are bought off) the health care won't change. It must be incredibly frustrating to live in that system. Congress matters more than the President on these kinds of major laws and initiatives. Congress is why Hillarycare failed. Congress is why Obamacare is failing now (they are defunding it and cutting it into a million pieces).

On a side note, what country in the western world calls legislation by the pejorative? Only in America will you hear childish statements like Hillarycare from the 90's or Obamacare from the 00's put forth as serious policy terms.

cco

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Hillary is someone I see as a person who wants to be progressive on many issues, but she feels limited by the system in the US and is unwilling to change it.

Which is what, like Obama, makes her the ideal American Democrat: Both had the ability to be conservatives in real life, but to let their voters project fantasies of the progressive bound by the cruel chains of opposition.

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Health care is how I define Hillary Clinton, its how she came into Washington in 1994, and its her signature issue.

For her signature issue, she's sure convinced it'll never ever happen.

MapleInTheEye wrote:
She was no worse than Obama on this front. It is rather sad that in the USA, no matter who wins (even if Bernie won, he couldn't do anything because of Congress and the individual members who are bought off) the health care won't change. It must be incredibly frustrating to live in that system. Congress matters more than the President on these kinds of major laws and initiatives. Congress is why Hillarycare failed. Congress is why Obamacare is failing now (they are defunding it and cutting it into a million pieces).

And here we have the essential difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. When Republicans want a policy passed, they vote for candidates that endorse it and primary the ones who don't. The Republican Party is governed by Republican voters and doesn't give a shit about Democratic voters. Whereas when Democrats want a policy passed, they ask Democratic elected officials, who tell them it's unrealistic and they need to vote Democratic anyway to stop the Republicans from getting in, then turn around and implement Republican policies anyway. The Democratic Party is also governed by Republican voters and also doesn't give a shit about Democratic voters.

Paladin1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

For what crimes, exactly?

The case of Kristian Saucier, a US Navy sailor sentenced to a year in prison for taking 6 pictures inside a Navy submarine to show his family of what he did for work is often brought up in contras against Clintons use of a private email server where she insecurely stored 110 emails with classified articles of information.

While the sailor got a year in prison the FBI declined to charge Mrs Clinton.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/05/fbi-no-charges-hillary-c...

Preferential treatment by people who have been caught on record suggesting they should take it easy on her since she might be the next president.

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

So, you agree with the Trumpkins that they should LOCK HER UP for having a private email server? Hilarious.

Paladin1

Michael you don't need to try and turn this into a Trump vs Clinton thing. Government employees take courses all the time on information security, cyber awareness and the handling of classified and secret doccuments and information.

You asked what laws did she break. She insecurely stored classified information on an illegal private server. She broke a few laws.  Another US citizen was sentenced to a year in prison for what many argue is a much much lesser severity of the offense. Ignorance of the law is never a reasonable defense and it's beyond silly to believe that Mrs Clinton "didn't know any better".

6 pictures pictures of some machinery that wasn't shared exposed or compromised vs 110 emails with classified information at the secratary of state level. Any guesses on which was more dangerous to national interests?

Regardless of the clear hiprocracy between the two cases, she insecurly stored classified information which is an offense punishable by prison time. FBI let her off the hook, we have a good idea why too.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The FBI "let her off the hook" because they concluded they didn't have a case they could convict on. Your comparison with the naval schmuck who went to jail for terminal stupidity has nothing to do with the law in the Clinton case. All the serious legal opinions I have read agree that she acted in ways that may have been ill-advised, possibly even a threat to security, but not subject to criminal sanctions.

Paladin1

Ahhhh, I get it now. Okay you're right :)

josh

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The FBI "let her off the hook" because they concluded they didn't have a case they could convict on. Your comparison with the naval schmuck who went to jail for terminal stupidity has nothing to do with the law in the Clinton case. All the serious legal opinions I have read agree that she acted in ways that may have been ill-advised, possibly even a threat to security, but not subject to criminal sanctions.

I can’t believe we’re still debating this.  And that totally non-comparable case.  Meanwhile it turns out that Comey was using a private email server in 2016.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40585706/the-savage-beauty-of-hillarys-tweet-on-comeys-email-use

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think the point is that one precident in totally different circumstances makes a great campfire story, but has little application in law. I think to be accurate one should look at how the law has been applied to civilians/politicians in similar cases.  Not just the most grevious case one can find. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Ahhhh, I get it now. Okay you're right :)

I don't want to leave the impression that I think the U.S. legal system is fair or just. Glenn Greenwald wrote a book about how unfair it actually is. What I did mean to say is that the elites in the U.S. have written the laws to protect themselves from any consequences, while savagely punishing the rest of society for transgressions major and minor, including your luckless sailor.

I submit that any other individual of equivalent status to Hillary Clinton, such as Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and so on would have received the same treatment, because those actions, when done by an individual of that class, are not considered crimes.

NDPP

Inspector-General Report on FBI & Clinton's Emails Shows Secrecy Threatens Democracy

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/15/inspector-general-repo...

"The 500 page inspector general's report released Thursday, reveals how unjustified secrecy and poor decisions helped ravage the credibility of both Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the FBI. 'The IG report gives the impression that the FBI treated Hillary Clinton and her coterie like royalty - or at least like personages  worthy of extreme discretion."

US IG Report

http://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

I found page #294 particularly interesting. This contains notes the FBI agent recorded regarding the contents of Anthony Wiener's laptop. 'Hillary Clinton & Foundation..."

Paladin1

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Ahhhh, I get it now. Okay you're right :)

I don't want to leave the impression that I think the U.S. legal system is fair or just. Glenn Greenwald wrote a book about how unfair it actually is. What I did mean to say is that the elites in the U.S. have written the laws to protect themselves from any consequences, while savagely punishing the rest of society for transgressions major and minor, including your luckless sailor.

I submit that any other individual of equivalent status to Hillary Clinton, such as Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and so on would have received the same treatment, because those actions, when done by an individual of that class, are not considered crimes.

 

In complete agreement with you sir.

Elites on all sides of the political spectrum enjoy laws that manage to shield themselves from any consequences.

 

NDPP

And as for 'Russian collusion':

Uranium One is a Curious Case

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uranium-one-is-a-curious-case-1518564360

"...Would it have been embarrassing for the Obama policy if it were known that the uranium assets the Russian government sought to buy had been accumulated by Canadian entrepreneurs working closely with Bill Clinton? That the Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledged contributions from people associated with these transactions? That Mr Clinton had been paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow...? A lot wasn't known that would now be embarrassing for a President Clinton."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Michael you don't need to try and turn this into a Trump vs Clinton thing. Government employees take courses all the time on information security, cyber awareness and the handling of classified and secret doccuments and information.

You asked what laws did she break. She insecurely stored classified information on an illegal private server. She broke a few laws.  Another US citizen was sentenced to a year in prison for what many argue is a much much lesser severity of the offense. Ignorance of the law is never a reasonable defense and it's beyond silly to believe that Mrs Clinton "didn't know any better".

6 pictures pictures of some machinery that wasn't shared exposed or compromised vs 110 emails with classified information at the secratary of state level. Any guesses on which was more dangerous to national interests?

Regardless of the clear hiprocracy between the two cases, she insecurly stored classified information which is an offense punishable by prison time. FBI let her off the hook, we have a good idea why too.

The young sailor was sentenced under the military justice system, which is under the control of the Pentagon and no one else.  No civilian has any say in how the military justice system makes its decisions.  Neither the FBI nor SOS Clinton nor the Obama Administration had any say in Saucier's sentence, nor anyway to intervene to lessen his sentence.

As to Hillary and her server, the main reason she wasn't charged was that they didn't have enough evidence to charge her for anything major.  

So the situations are not comparable, and Hillary was not protected by the same people who threw the book at Saucier.  Saucier probably did get a raw deal.  It should be noted that Saucier would have been told, over and over and over, that taking photographs inside a nuclear submarine was not allowed under ANY circumstances-no exceptions were made based on what was photographed.

MapleInTheEye

Paladin1 wrote:

Michael you don't need to try and turn this into a Trump vs Clinton thing. Government employees take courses all the time on information security, cyber awareness and the handling of classified and secret doccuments and information.

You asked what laws did she break. She insecurely stored classified information on an illegal private server. She broke a few laws.  Another US citizen was sentenced to a year in prison for what many argue is a much much lesser severity of the offense. Ignorance of the law is never a reasonable defense and it's beyond silly to believe that Mrs Clinton "didn't know any better".

6 pictures pictures of some machinery that wasn't shared exposed or compromised vs 110 emails with classified information at the secratary of state level. Any guesses on which was more dangerous to national interests?

Regardless of the clear hiprocracy between the two cases, she insecurly stored classified information which is an offense punishable by prison time. FBI let her off the hook, we have a good idea why too.

It is my understanding based on reports in mainstream media that the use of a private server by a Secretary of State was not against the rules until after she began her tenure in the office. All previous Secretaries of State used private email servers, Colin Powell particularly came out in defense (of sorts) across party lines.

I am not defending Hillary so much as I'm stating the obvious: the rules changed after she became Secretary of State and they cannot be retroactively administered. She ran the email server within rules of the time, and that's really why the FBI didn't pursue. 

You may be right in your comments about rules bring different for leadership high up the chain vs. lower level employees, but the reality is that she did have the right to use a private server under State Dept. rules of the time she assumed power in 2008.

MapleInTheEye

josh wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The FBI "let her off the hook" because they concluded they didn't have a case they could convict on. Your comparison with the naval schmuck who went to jail for terminal stupidity has nothing to do with the law in the Clinton case. All the serious legal opinions I have read agree that she acted in ways that may have been ill-advised, possibly even a threat to security, but not subject to criminal sanctions.

I can’t believe we’re still debating this.  And that totally non-comparable case.  Meanwhile it turns out that Comey was using a private email server in 2016.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40585706/the-savage-beauty-of-hillarys-tweet-on-comeys-email-use

Exactly, they all use private servers when they can. The email 'scandal' Hillary endured during her campaign was just a fluff story IMO. Afterall, as I said in the last post, State Dept. policy when she assumed power had allowed it.

What the Republicans are trying to do is take a policy change that occurred after the fact and retroactively apply it. It is no different than saying alcohol is legal for private sale, but we're going to change the law and make it only available at public institutions. That means no private restaurant sales; however, all that drank alcohol before the law went into effect are going to be harshly punished retroactively.

It is a witch hunt. It always was, it never was anything more. Emails aren't important, what was important would have been what she would have done policy wise for the people of her country. On that front, she deserved lots of criticism. But not email.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Exactly, they all use private servers when they can. The email 'scandal' Hillary endured during her campaign was just a fluff story IMO. Afterall, as I said in the last post, State Dept. policy when she assumed power had allowed it.

Actually, they don't all use private email servers. They do all use private email accounts, like GMail or Yahoo Mail. On the other hand,  a mail server is a program which runs on an internet attached computer and receives all the email which is sent to a particular domain, such as JoesPizza.com. Such servers are notoriously difficult to properly configure, and a small error in configuration can result in serious vulnerabilities. I've been a software developer since before the internet began, and I've set up a great many servers for web sites and private client/server apps. But I've always avoided setting up an email server, because it is such a pain, and I'm not a professional sysadmin. I pay for someone else to manage my email server for me because I'd be a fool not to.

In Clinton's case, some techie had set up a box in her house on Long Island which ran a mail server for clintonemail.com and a few other domains. Even worse, it was running Microsoft Windows, and the Exchange email server, not the most secure choices. No others in similar positions did anything like this, as far as I know. Still, as I wrote earlier, although extremely unwise, this was apparently not criminal.

MapleInTheEye

Michael Moriarity wrote:

MapleInTheEye wrote:

Exactly, they all use private servers when they can. The email 'scandal' Hillary endured during her campaign was just a fluff story IMO. Afterall, as I said in the last post, State Dept. policy when she assumed power had allowed it.

Actually, they don't all use private email servers. They do all use private email accounts, like GMail or Yahoo Mail. On the other hand,  a mail server is a program which runs on an internet attached computer and receives all the email which is sent to a particular domain, such as JoesPizza.com. Such servers are notoriously difficult to properly configure, and a small error in configuration can result in serious vulnerabilities. I've been a software developer since before the internet began, and I've set up a great many servers for web sites and private client/server apps. But I've always avoided setting up an email server, because it is such a pain, and I'm not a professional sysadmin. I pay for someone else to manage my email server for me because I'd be a fool not to.

In Clinton's case, some techie had set up a box in her house on Long Island which ran a mail server for clintonemail.com and a few other domains. Even worse, it was running Microsoft Windows, and the Exchange email server, not the most secure choices. No others in similar positions did anything like this, as far as I know. Still, as I wrote earlier, although extremely unwise, this was apparently not criminal.

 

When it comes to the email: it doesn't matter. I have read the "classified" information samples online, many of those documents were retro-actively classified after the emails were sent BTW, and the information in them wasn't of intense national security importance. Some of the emails they deemed classified included things like wishing a diplomat a happy birthday. These emails are hardly of major security importance.

The entire email fiasco is a farce, there's nothing there other than political games. The Clintons hardly did anything out of norm.

P.S. I'd trust a home server more than an AOL or Hotmail or Gmail account.

And I repeat, most of the classified emails (or at least a GREAT number of them) were deemed classified retroactively, after the emails were sent. How can content that wasn't classified when the email was sent be held accountable because the rules changed later?

Like I said, the Clintons can be called a number of things for good reason (are they political opportunists? you bet!), but email was not a major error. It was a political witch hunt. It was a hit job the media participated in so that they could pretend they were fair and balanced. In reality, they let Trump's scandals ride by without a lot of notice.

MapleInTheEye

If any of you want to have fun, WikiLeaks has the 30,000 emails:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

Again, there's nothing much there. The email farce was a joke from the beginning. There's little harm Clinton had in using private email, be it her own server or Gmail. It honestly doesn't matter. Especially since the rules allowed private email at the time.

There is zero proof that any of the emails Clinton sent put the US or its interests in danger. That's the bottom line for me. If you want to classify, retroactively, that they had a diplomatic dinner scheduled and exchanged information by private email... Okay. But that doesn't make for a national scandal. This entire situation was hilarious to watch from abroad as the US is only embarrassing itself IMO. There are far more important issues in the world than the use of a private email server.

MapleInTheEye

Here's a perfect example of her email. The content was unclassified when she sent it on 28 Jun 2010, was classified retroactively on 27 Aug 2015, scheduled to be automatically declassified on 1 Jul 2o25; however, it was declassified early by Dept of State on 31 Aug 2015, days after being classified.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18

Just another boring email about Haiti's president making a decision and disregarding US opinion. Yawn. Not important... Yet this is exactly what the talking heads in the right wing media of the US used as dire and serious.

And if you note, the information/content of the email originates from a public Associated Press article that was publicly available anyway. Does it really matter if Hillary sent retroactively classified emails? Not at all. Its a game, it is a political football and nothing more.

MapleInTheEye

Paladin1 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Ahhhh, I get it now. Okay you're right :)

I don't want to leave the impression that I think the U.S. legal system is fair or just. Glenn Greenwald wrote a book about how unfair it actually is. What I did mean to say is that the elites in the U.S. have written the laws to protect themselves from any consequences, while savagely punishing the rest of society for transgressions major and minor, including your luckless sailor.

I submit that any other individual of equivalent status to Hillary Clinton, such as Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and so on would have received the same treatment, because those actions, when done by an individual of that class, are not considered crimes.

 

In complete agreement with you sir.

Elites on all sides of the political spectrum enjoy laws that manage to shield themselves from any consequences.

 

 

The question is why does the US have such draconian laws on average, everyday citizens? Regarding these emails, my actual point isn't to defend Hillary or Powell or any of those people. They don't deserve prison time over sending some emails through a private server.

My point in this context is that regular citizens shouldn't face consequences, either, for any trivial matter like emails or whistleblowing. Why was Bradley (Chelsea) Manning put in prison to begin with? I wouldn't support anyone going to prison for whistle blowing. Be it high level or low level. That's the problem in the US: draconian laws that target average, everyday citizens.

Pages