The FBI in revolt? re Clinton

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

Ari, no really!!! Who cares??? She said that she used the private server because she wasn't allowed to link to the government server from her home. The private server allowed her more flexability to work both at her office and at home. She was also assured that the private server was very secure from hackers. And to be quite honest, I don't care. If she had really done anything wrong, then she would have been convicted in a court of law. The FBI admitted after a long and lengthy process that they had no evidence of criminal wrong doing. Case closed. Some people seem unable to wrap their heads around the fact that if the media and opposition party keeps it in the news ad nauseum for years on end that she did something seriously wrong. The truth is that this constant harping about the private email server constitutes harassment against her. And I am wondering that if she were male that this private email server issue would have died in the news years ago where it belongs. The Republicans won't let it go because she was woman who was in charge of their foreign affairs.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
She did not set up a private server to circumvent anything except having to live at the office. Colin Powell did it. Condaleeza Rice did it, and it is perfectly legal.

Rice and Powell had private e-mail accounts. Clinton went further and constructed a private e-mail server. Clinton went farther. There is a difference.

Aristotle is correct, and the distinction is very important.

edited to add:

As to whether it is legal, probably yes. However, State Dept. officials clearly stated that if Clinton had asked for permission to install this server, which she did not, it would have been denied.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I disagree, Michael. And if she really had done anything wrong, she would have been found criminally responsible of wrongdoing.

Misfit Misfit's picture

And then she would not have been able to work at home which is what she wanted to do. Ok, she did not ask for permission which would have been denied. So tar and feather her for remainder of her natural life. I mean, if you murder someone in Canada, you are punished for 25 years. I don't think that the media and the Republicans are ever going to let this issue drop. If Hillary lives to be 95, her punishment will exceed a maximum life sentence in Canada, and all because that if she would have asked for permission, she would have been denied.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Misfit wrote:
I disagree, Michael. And if she really had done anything wrong, she would have been found criminally responsible of wrongdoing.

You have more faith in the US justice system than I have, but I agree that there is no clear-cut crime in this case.

However, I am a (mostly retired) software developer who still runs his own small local area network and a few web servers. I've never set up my own mail server because it is so difficult to get the configuration right, and maintain security. I gladly pay experts to do all that for me. I consider it gross negligence on the part of whoever set this up for her, and I can see no innocent motive for the whole scheme. Still, it isn't clearly illegal.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Misfit wrote:
And then she would not have been able to work at home which is what she wanted to do. Ok, she did not ask for permission which would have been denied. So tar and feather her for remainder of her natural life. I mean, if you murder someone in Canada, you are punished for 25 years. I don't think that the media and the Republicans are ever going to let this issue drop. If Hillary lives to be 95, her punishment will exceed a maximum life sentence in Canada, and all because that if she would have asked for permission, she would have been denied.

I'm don't know the details of her setup, but I really don't think that is true. She didn't need a server in her home to work from home. If that were the case, then because the server was in her home, she wouldn't have been able to work in her Washington office. Either way, there is something called a Virtual Private Network or vpn, which provides secure end-to-end access to a remote server. The only reason to have her own server was to maintain control of of the message archive.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Back to the point - the email issue has been investigated, what, twice? There were exhaustive hearings. No criminal conduct found. If they could have found something to charge her with - you can't say the Repubs weren't motivated - they would have.

Time to move the fuck on.

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
She did not set up a private server to circumvent anything except having to live at the office. Colin Powell did it. Condaleeza Rice did it, and it is perfectly legal.

Rice and Powell had private e-mail accounts. Clinton went further and constructed a private e-mail server. Clinton went farther. There is a difference.

So what?

josh

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Misfit wrote:
I disagree, Michael. And if she really had done anything wrong, she would have been found criminally responsible of wrongdoing.

You have more faith in the US justice system than I have, but I agree that there is no clear-cut crime in this case.

 

And that should end the matter.

josh
Rev Pesky

Timebandit wrote:

Here's a hint:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OauLuWXD_RI

Samantha Bee interviews Russian trolls.

You mean Samantha Bee interviews people wearing masks and speaking with an accent. Yet with all the claims of Russian interference in the US election, Samantha Bee did not provide a motive. Just more of the same old nothingness.

Interesting how it echoes almost exactly the right-wing pundits.

Here's Charles Krauthammer weighing in on the email/Russia nexus:

No Matter Who Wins

Quote:
...regarding WikiLeaks, how do we know it will have released the most damning material by election day? A hardened KGB operative like Russian President Vladimir Putin might well prefer to hold back whatever is most incriminating until a Clinton presidency. He is surely not above attempted blackmail at an opportune time.

There seems to be a consensus that Putin’s hacking gambit is intended only to disrupt the election rather than to deny Clinton the White House. Why? Putin harbours a deep animus toward Clinton, whom he blames personally for the anti-Putin demonstrations that followed Russia’s rigged 2011 parliamentary elections.

Moreover, he would surely prefer to deal with Trump, a man who has adopted the softest line on the Kremlin of any modern U.S. leader.

Note when Krauthammer says Putin wants to 'disrupt' the election, he doesn't say in what way. Would the emails prevent people from voting, for instance? Would it prevent them from entering polling booths to register their preference for President and others? No, it wouldn't do any of those things.

But Krauthammer goes on to suggest that Putin would rather 'deal with Trump'. This is from one of the hardest right pundits in the USA.

So I guess it is Trump that's the 'stooge' Putin is looking for, even though the President has little (to no) control over USA foreign policy.

What a joke!

 

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
Back to the point - the email issue has been investigated, what, twice? There were exhaustive hearings. No criminal conduct found. If they could have found something to charge her with - you can't say the Repubs weren't motivated - they would have.

Time to move the fuck on.

The Republicans don't control the Executive Branch of the government, the Democrats do. And the Clinton name is very powerful within the Democratic Party. Did you know that Bill had a meeting with the Justice Secretary a few days before the FBI made their recommendation in July? Just the fact that Bill would meet with her while his wife was under investigation shows an apalling lack of judgement. Regardless of what actually happened, the optics are that there was some special favours discussed behind the scenes.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It's come up during a he confessional hearing over Benghazi first - definitely dominated by republicans. It's the epitome of beating a dead horse. And now Comey has violated the Hatch Act. ETA: Bernie Sanders seems to have movd on from the primaries - maybe you should, too.

Aristotleded24

Rev Pesky wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Here's a hint:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OauLuWXD_RI

Samantha Bee interviews Russian trolls.

You mean Samantha Bee interviews people wearing masks and speaking with an accent. Yet with all the claims of Russian interference in the US election, Samantha Bee did not provide a motive. Just more of the same old nothingness.

Interesting how it echoes almost exactly the right-wing pundits.

Not to mention her [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvjJ8cqCAQ]nasty little hit piece on the Bernie or Bust movement.[/url]

I've never liked Bee much even when she was on the Daily Show.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
Bernie Sanders seems to have movd on from the primaries - maybe you should, too.

People are moving on, as in moving on from the Democratic Party. People are disgusted with the way the DNC stacked the deck in Clinton's favour and vicously attacked anyone who opposed Clinton (the Bernie bros myth was bad enough, but saying that young women who supported Sanders over Clinton were doing so in order to get laid? That's disgusting). Bernie was able to rally people around particular issues, and if these people don't see that Clinton is going to address them, they won't support her. They'll either go third party or stay home. Not to mention that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvjJ8cqCAQ]when asked how she plans to win over Bernie voters upon winning the nomination, her answer was, "I am winning!"[/url] Really? They're not stupid, they can do math.

Hillary is a horrible candidate, and the Democratic Party is horrible for putting her up as a candidate. She comes across as if she believes the Presidency is inevitably hers, and everyone is going to support her and like her. Likewise, her attitude towards Bernie's voters that they will just vote for her because without Hillary having to do any work to win Bernie's voters is arrogant. Trump has made more overtures to Bernie's voters than Clinton.

No, public opinion polls consitently showed Sanders doing better against every Republican candidate than Clinton. Look at campaign histories, and you will also see that Sanders tends to gain popular support as he campaigns, Clinton's public support tends to go in the opposite direction. The Bernie people tried to warn the Democrats that this would happen, but the Democrats didn't listen. Clinton deserves to lose and she deserves to lose badly. What's unfortunate about this is that doing so paves the way for Trump's ascendancy. In other words, the Democrats sacrificed their party and the country on the alter of the Clinton family's ego. Elizabeth Warren, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, or Martin O'Malley would have been better candidates this cycle.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

My point is that the shoulda woulda coulda is moot at this point. She's the candidate. The Democratic party seems to have made peace with that. And it doesn't look, from the polls anyway, like the ranks of either the greens or the libertarians are swelling as a result.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
My point is that the shoulda woulda coulda is moot at this point. She's the candidate. The Democratic party seems to have made peace with that. And it doesn't look, from the polls anyway, like the ranks of either the greens or the libertarians are swelling as a result.

The Libertarians are actually quite close to the levels needed to be fully funded in 2020. The Greens still have a way to go.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Timebandit wrote:
It's come up during a he confessional hearing over Benghazi first - definitely dominated by republicans. It's the epitome of beating a dead horse. And now Comey has violated the Hatch Act. ETA: Bernie Sanders seems to have movd on from the primaries - maybe you should, too.

I assume you meant "congressional" hearing, but as a former Catholic, I like "confessional" better.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Sorry, I'm on a smart phone - autocorrect sucks. Yes, I meant congressional and may have even typed it.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Ari, yes Bill Clinton did meet with the Attorney General on her plane three days before the FBI came out with the decision that there was no evidence to press charges. And yes, the optics did look bad, but the AG did recuse herself from the case from that point on, so the situation was handled appropriately. Bad optics does not translate into inside tampering, especially since the AG removed herself from the case immediately after her meeting with Bill Clinton. If there WAS inside tampering, then the GOP would have been all over it. Nothing happened, so all the Republicans can do is incessantly whine and snivel and try to keep the issue in the MSM to make it APPEAR that she is shady and is getting special treatment. So what all of this boils down to is optics and innuendo with no substance to back any of it up.

Aristotleded24

Misfit, that doesn't matter. It's important not only to avoid actual wrong-doing, but to also avoid the appearance of wrong-doing whenever possible. It's not exaclty a secret that the Republicans have hated the Clintons for decades, and they'll find things to go after the Clintons over on their own. Why hand them something they can easily use against his wife?Why do your opponent's dirty work for them? It's obvious that from a politcal standpoint that he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from that meeting. To illustrate this point a bit more clearly, let's flip the script: let's imagine the exact same scenario playing out, only it was the spouse of a former Republican President, under a Republican Presidential administration, meeting with an Attorney General appointed by the Republicans. How many people from among this community who say Clinton did nothing wrong would say the same thing in that scenario?

This principle is applicable to areas other than politics as well. For example, people who work with children not only have to avoid actually abusing them, but they also have to avoid situations where they could be accused of such things, for example by ensuring they are never alone with one. The same principle applies here.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Yes, I am well aware of all this. I am also not an American so I care about this significantly less than most Americans do. It appears on the surface that Bill Clinton shut down a possible trial against Hillary by meddling which is very serious. There may or there may not have been enough evidence to proceed with a trial but we will never know, at least not for now. If there legitimately was no evidence, and the DOJ was going to proceed with a postponed trial for after the election to appease the Republicans and to come across as being unbiased even though they had flimsy evidence, the Democrats would not have been able to fight all the negative publicity and were virtually guaranteed to lose the election with the optics of a looming trial on the horizon. Without sufficient evidence for a conviction and a trumped up trial with the election hanging in the balance, I can understand Bill Clinton's motive for doing so. However, if there was legitimate evidence to proceed with a trial, and Bill Clinton did what he did, then he is very guilty of serious legal tampering, IMO. From my perspective, however, I see this whole ordeal as gutter politics of the worst kind imaginable being perpetrated by the Republicans, and this latest Rudy Guilliani scandal is a prime case in point. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to sift politics from fact, and I see a case where the Clintons know how far they can stretch the boundaries yet still come out unscathed. I also see facts which clearly show that if there was good evidence against the Clintons, then the FBI has had more than enough time to successfully build a case against them before all this, but they failed to do so, and that much of the media hype against them right now is nothing more than politically motivated innuendo.

NDPP

Indictment Related To Clinton Foundation 'Likely' - Fish Tank

https://youtu.be/TG_Xyyy3mjU

6079_Smith_W

RT running with a FOX News story? Strangely enough, no surprise there:

Too bad they are unlikely to cover the fact FOX lied, and they have admitted they lied:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/04/fox-news-repor...

 

 

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
Bernie Sanders seems to have movd on from the primaries - maybe you should, too.

People are moving on, as in moving on from the Democratic Party. People are disgusted with the way the DNC stacked the deck in Clinton's favour and vicously attacked anyone who opposed Clinton (the Bernie bros myth was bad enough, but saying that young women who supported Sanders over Clinton were doing so in order to get laid? That's disgusting). Bernie was able to rally people around particular issues, and if these people don't see that Clinton is going to address them, they won't support her. They'll either go third party or stay home. Not to mention that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvjJ8cqCAQ]when asked how she plans to win over Bernie voters upon winning the nomination, her answer was, "I am winning!"[/url] Really? They're not stupid, they can do math.

Hillary is a horrible candidate, and the Democratic Party is horrible for putting her up as a candidate. She comes across as if she believes the Presidency is inevitably hers, and everyone is going to support her and like her. Likewise, her attitude towards Bernie's voters that they will just vote for her because without Hillary having to do any work to win Bernie's voters is arrogant. Trump has made more overtures to Bernie's voters than Clinton.

No, public opinion polls consitently showed Sanders doing better against every Republican candidate than Clinton. Look at campaign histories, and you will also see that Sanders tends to gain popular support as he campaigns, Clinton's public support tends to go in the opposite direction. The Bernie people tried to warn the Democrats that this would happen, but the Democrats didn't listen. Clinton deserves to lose and she deserves to lose badly. What's unfortunate about this is that doing so paves the way for Trump's ascendancy. In other words, the Democrats sacrificed their party and the country on the alter of the Clinton family's ego. Elizabeth Warren, Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, or Martin O'Malley would have been better candidates this cycle.

I think Sanders lost because compared with Clinton he didn't do well campaigning for the Latino and African American vote. I think he only has himself to blame for not appealing more to these groups that are an important part of the Democratic Party. Maybe stressing more anti-racist policies would have made the difference? Personally I prefer Sanders over Clinton but I think it is understandable that African Americans and Latinos voted in larger numbers for Clinton.

Aristotleded24

Misfit wrote:
I also see facts which clearly show that if there was good evidence against the Clintons, then the FBI has had more than enough time to successfully build a case against them before all this, but they failed to do so, and that much of the media hype against them right now is nothing more than politically motivated innuendo.

It's true that the Clintons have been viciously attacked for decades, Hillary especially in a sexist manner. However, the Clintons have done bad things, and it can be hard to sort out which charges against the Clintons are legitmate and which one are not. In the case of the e-mail situation, it's not just the far right that thinks she did something wrong. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptlTScIFIM]Kyle Kulinski,[/url] [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMs-6IUQYMQ]Mike Figueredo,[/url] [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mDXnmX6hUo]H A Goodman,[/url] and [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAiUkUmcOM]Sane Progressive[/url] said the same thing.

josh

Comey says nothing new in the emails to change the July decision. He could have made that determination without going public in the first place. What a putz.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
However, the Clintons have done bad things, and it can be hard to sort out which charges against the Clintons are legitmate and which one are not.

Would you agree that it's important to figure that out before acting?

Aristotleded24

When Trump said that Clinton would be in jail if he were President, he tapped into a widespread sentiment that Clinton was getting preferrential treatment, which no doubt contributed to what is unfolding tonight. As for what happens next, I don't believe Trump actually will move to follow through on that threat.

ygtbk

@Aristotle:

But he might let the FBI and the DOJ act without blatant political interference and let the investigation unfold. Which should kind of be SOP?

Aristotleded24

ygtbk wrote:
@Aristotle:

But he might let the FBI and the DOJ act without blatant political interference and let the investigation unfold. Which should kind of be SOP?

The practical issue is that there is no way for the FBI and the DOJ to act without being accused of political interference.

No matter. Trump and the Clintons are good friends. They do not despise each other the way their supporters despise the other candidates. I believe the "you'll be in jail" thing was designed to push people's buttons and motivate them. I don't think he'll allow one of his friends to go to jail if it can be avoided.

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You really don't know what the motive is?

Not exactly. What I'm saying is there is no motive to know.

I do know that each presidential candidate has a clear motive, that is to try and convince the voters the other candidate is a 'stooge' of the Russians. That is clear, and was evident in one of the debates.

 

You were claiming to have no idea what motive there might be. Now that the deal is done, they are talking openly about it: sanctions, and Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win...

And that they likely helped a bit with wikileaks, and were in contact with the Trump campaign.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-wikileaks-update-moscow-likely-helped-bit...

 

josh

The FBI is investigating the Russian involvement in the Trump campaign and their role in hacking the DNC.  Of course it's not as important as someone sending emails to their own server, but we shall see what comes.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...You were claiming to have no idea what motive there might be. Now that the deal is done, they are talking openly about it: sanctions, and Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win...

And that they likely helped a bit with wikileaks, and were in contact with the Trump campaign.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-wikileaks-update-moscow-likely-helped-bit...

Once again, I did not say I didn't know what Putin's motive might have been. I said there wasn't a motive.

In the two above stories you've linked to, there is nothing at all to suggest a motive, and in fact Julian Assange specifically denies any involvement by Russia in the email hacking.

From the second link:

Quote:
...WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, has denied Russian hackers provided the information to his organization and denied WikiLeaks was trying to influence the election.

“The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications — because none exists,” Assange said in a blog post.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Of course. I am sure he and Trump were just playing a game of facebook scrabble.

And Wikileaks? Well he didn't say exactly, so I guess Markov helped out a little bit with nothing at all, eh?

 

Pages