Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught

 Ustrello wrote:
And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught

We shall see...

It can be an issue during the general election campaign...

Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?

If the FBI *does* recommend indictment, and the DOJ refuses to actually indict. The general election commercials against Hillary will write themselves.

 Ouze wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:
It's fine. It's a very cute little plan that he can't make happen. Wow, taxes, cool. I'll concede completely that this is an 'interesting' plan, and it doesn't look bad on paper (provided it's current, doesn't change, etc.) Will that please you?

Now please explain how he's going to make something happen.

Because he can 'propose', and it'll get shot down.

If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.

He can do an executive order, and it can also get shot down.

It's possible to override an executive order via congressional mandate, then presumably the president will veto it, and it requires a 2/3rd super-majority to override the veto. Bad as math as I am, the numbers are not there to override that veto; an executive order would stand unless ruled unconstitutional.

Even if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate it will likely be less than 60 seats and the Republicans will probably still control the House. A Republican House and Democratic Senate is going to make it difficult for any president to get his/her legislative proposal through the system intact. Even with a supermajority Congress has a way of twisting things around and doing what they want. The ACA is a prime example of that.

Executive orders are just directives issued to Federal Departments regarding how interpret and follow existing federal laws. It is illegal for presidents to use executive orders to make new laws. SCotUS rulings have enforced that limitation consistently and recently.

Every 4 years presidential candidates make promises about their policies that are no more than just pandering for votes. People get caught up with the cult of personality and hearing what they want to hear. People who think presidents change things need to remember that the real legislative power resides with Congress, the political body with horrendous approval ratings but where incumbents still win reelection more often than not. Our system is designed to be slow and to require broad consensus to enact changes and to be protected against sudden drastic change directed by individual politicians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught

We shall see...

If can be an issue during the general election campaign...

Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?

If the FBI *does* recommend indictment, and the DOJ refuses to actually indict. The general election commercials against Hillary will write themselves.

Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.

Amazing! Still, you'd think they'd kill Hitler or something, instead of using their apparent powers of time travel to go back to 1982.

 Laughing Man wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.

Amazing! Still, you'd think they'd kill Hitler or something, instead of using their apparent powers of time travel to go back to 1982.

The Democratic Party created superdelegates to make sure the Party's favored candidate won. They exist to give the Party more control over the process and to offset grass roots challengers from outside the Party's influence. The superdelegates exist to help candidates like Hillary Clinton against grass roots candidates like Obama and Sanders. The existence of superdelegates puts more pressure on outsider candidates to win a larger majority of primary delegates to keep superdelegates from being a deciding factor in the favor of the Party's preferred candidate. They were used to make sure Mondale won the nomination in 1984 and since then the number of Democratic Party leaders to be granted superdelegate status has only increased. They are a tool of the Party and the Clintons have spent decades cementing their status as Party leaders and favorites.

 Laughing Man wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Whatever the outcome is going to be they are going to move at a glacial pace and continue to drag their feet and not take any action until after the election. A Democratic administration isn't going to deliberately torpedo Hillary Clinton's campaign. She may eventually get indicted but they'll wait until after she wins (or loses though that's unlikely) and then make it go away. The Clintons have spent the last quarter century building their power base in the Democratic Party, they created super delegates to make sure Hillary won when she ran again this year, they're not going to squash her campaign with a federal indictment.

Amazing! Still, you'd think they'd kill Hitler or something, instead of using their apparent powers of time travel to go back to 1982.

I doubt she'll be indicted. I fully expect the FBI to issue a report that mistakes were made but none intentionally and that classified information was not compromised so no charges will be filed. Never forget that Hillary is still the wife of a living ex-President and has a powerful political machine backing her up. The FBI won't go against that unless multiple felonies are involved.

Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.

Even if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate it will likely be less than 60 seats and the Republicans will probably still control the House. A Republican House and Democratic Senate is going to make it difficult for any president to get his/her legislative proposal through the system intact. Even with a supermajority Congress has a way of twisting things around and doing what they want. The ACA is a prime example of that.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Every 4 years presidential candidates make promises about their policies that are no more than just pandering for votes. People get caught up with the cult of personality and hearing what they want to hear. People who think presidents change things need to remember that the real legislative power resides with Congress, the political body with horrendous approval ratings but where incumbents still win reelection more often than not. Our system is designed to be slow and to require broad consensus to enact changes and to be protected against sudden drastic change directed by individual politicians.

Sure; but what I said was in response to someone saying that essentially the POTUS had no control over tax policy whatsoever. You know, and I know, and probably everyone else knows, that while of course laws are passed by Congress, the POTUS does set an agenda for some pieces and helps to get them passed. Otherwise, we'd be calling them the 107th Congress's Tax Cuts, for example.

Of course, I'd also have to point out the example you used of how little power the POTUS has to get an agenda passed with congressional gridlock - the ACA, did, in fact, pass and is, in fact, the law.

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates

Um... What version is that?

GOP w/o Super-Delegates *is* the reason why we're seeing Trump as the front-runner.

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates

Who implied that?

The Parties have always controlled the primary process. They set the rules on candidacy eligibility, when states can hold primaries, when debates happen, who's invited to debates, what the rules are at the convention, who gets to vote in primaries and at the convention, etc. It's always been that way and it always will as long as the Parties exist. The Parties will act in their own perceived self interest, even if that goes against the expressed desires of a good chunk of the electorate.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates

Um... What version is that?

GOP w/o Super-Delegates *is* the reason why we're seeing Trump as the front-runner.

Here.

I'd be pretty surprised if the GOP doesn't have a more DNC style system going forward.

 dogma wrote:

 Brother Armiger wrote:

Look, we must be honest. 15% of our population is responsible for over 65% of the violent crime. This is just a cold, hard, sad fact. That's the thing about facts- they don't care about how you feel.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics claimed that, in 2012-13, non-Hispanic white people accounted for 42.9% of violent crimes while non-Hispanic black people accounted for only 22.4%.

The thing about facts indeed.

The problem with the BJS reports is that they are based on the NCVS. Most law enforcement agencies and criminologists use the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, which are based on actual, verified reported crimes and arrests, from law enforcement agencies across the United States. Neither is 100% reliable in judging statistics. But the FBI system is based on hard data, so it's considered the most reliable of the two. When broken down into percentages with some individual types of offenses, blacks tend to run neck and neck with whites, and surpass them in other offenses, despite being only a little over 13% of the total U.S. population.


In 2014 (for example), according to the UCR, blacks were responsible for 50.9% of reported cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, versus 46.7 percent for whites, in arrests of those 18 and over. For arrests of offenders under 18 years of age, blacks came in at 57.0% versus 41.2 for whites. Totals for that offense listing across all age groups are Whites: 46.3%, Blacks: 51.3%


Even if the total percentages for crime across the board are taken into account (Whites: 69.4% and Blacks:27.8%), and not taking other races/ethnicities into account, that's still pretty damned high for blacks relative to their percentage in the population.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates

Um... What version is that?

GOP w/o Super-Delegates *is* the reason why we're seeing Trump as the front-runner.

Here.

I'd be pretty surprised if the GOP doesn't have a more DNC style system going forward.

Shame on me for not being clear... I knew that.

GOP SuperDelegates <> Democrat SuperDelegates.

I'm not convinced the GOP would go the Democrat route after this season. All they really need to do, is to mandate "closed" primary/caucus. That'll put a damper on a hypothetical Trump-clone.

If, however, they want to stop someone like Cruz... then, yeah, SuperDelegates are going to be a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: lemme backup here.

This could change. The GOP "SuperDelegates"... those same folks get at least three cracks at the Convention Rules prior to the Convention.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If the Democrats also take the Senate in November, which isn't exactly a longshot, then it would be quite likely he could get tax policy successfully implemented.

Even if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate it will likely be less than 60 seats and the Republicans will probably still control the House. A Republican House and Democratic Senate is going to make it difficult for any president to get his/her legislative proposal through the system intact. Even with a supermajority Congress has a way of twisting things around and doing what they want. The ACA is a prime example of that.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Every 4 years presidential candidates make promises about their policies that are no more than just pandering for votes. People get caught up with the cult of personality and hearing what they want to hear. People who think presidents change things need to remember that the real legislative power resides with Congress, the political body with horrendous approval ratings but where incumbents still win reelection more often than not. Our system is designed to be slow and to require broad consensus to enact changes and to be protected against sudden drastic change directed by individual politicians.

Sure; but what I said was in response to someone saying that essentially the POTUS had no control over tax policy whatsoever. You know, and I know, and probably everyone else knows, that while of course laws are passed by Congress, the POTUS does set an agenda for some pieces and helps to get them passed. Otherwise, we'd be calling them the 107th Congress's Tax Cuts, for example.

Of course, I'd also have to point out the example you used of how little power the POTUS has to get an agenda passed with congressional gridlock - the ACA, did, in fact, pass and is, in fact, the law.

Yes, but I chose the ACA as an example because while the president went on an extensive speaking tour touting it as a plan that will let you keep your current health insurance plan, keep your doctor and lower your premiums, the bill that got passed by Congress didn't guarantee that at all. That's what happens when a bill works its way through multiple commitees and votes in Congress, things get changed, added, removed, etc. Ultimately the president gets somebody in congress to submit their legislative proposal and then if it makes it all the way through the process the president decides if the final bill resembles the original well enough to be worthy of signing into law or if Congress changed it so much that it should be vetoed.

Sanders could become president and get a representative in congress to submit his proposed tax reforms/changes. That proposal could go all the way through Congress, get back to Sanders desk and he could decide that it's so warped and changed that it's not worth him signing it into law.

The Earned Income Tax Credit was supposed to replace certain tax deduction and welfare programs but instead we just added and kept the rest too. The original intent of the EITC and the actual implementation of the EITC by Congress were different because Congress tends to do stuff like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Implying that the Republican party doesn't have their own versions of superdelegates

Um... What version is that?

GOP w/o Super-Delegates *is* the reason why we're seeing Trump as the front-runner.

Here.

I'd be pretty surprised if the GOP doesn't have a more DNC style system going forward.

Shame on me for not being clear... I knew that.

GOP SuperDelegates <> Democrat SuperDelegates.

I'm not convinced the GOP would go the Democrat route after this season. All they really need to do, is to mandate "closed" primary/caucus. That'll put a damper on a hypothetical Trump-clone.

If, however, they want to stop someone like Cruz... then, yeah, SuperDelegates are going to be a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: lemme backup here.

This could change. The GOP "SuperDelegates"... those same folks get at least three cracks at the Convention Rules prior to the Convention.

If the GOP made all primaries closed primaries that would indeed likely prevent candidates with very limited Republican credentials like Trump from winning the nomination. The draw back would be that you'd shrink the size of the primary electorate and run the risk of selecting a nominee who didn't appeal to a large enough segment of the national electorate to win the presidency. A more inclusive primary should be more indicative of national electability than exclusive closed primaries.

The number of people choosing to register as Independent is growing at a faster rate than membership in either Party and you don't want to alienate a pivotal consituency for a national election.

As government employee, I want to point out that I really hope they don't start prosecuting people for accidental spills of classified material. They'd fill more prisons than the war on drugs!

 Polonius wrote:
As government employee, I want to point out that I really hope they don't start prosecuting people for accidental spills of classified material. They'd fill more prisons than the war on drugs!

THat's the crux of emailgate... no?

Was it accidental? Or was it sheer negligence?

You're a lawyer... right? There's a distinction between the two.

She was specifically informed on how to 'handle' these classified communications...

She was informed that in setting up her server, it violated clear-cut rules...

If it were anyone else... that person would be in serious legal gak.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
And nothing will happen and all of this whembly posturing will have been for naught

We shall see...

It can be an issue during the general election campaign...

Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?

If the FBI *does* recommend indictment, and the DOJ refuses to actually indict. The general election commercials against Hillary will write themselves.

Honestly, Whembly, you really are grasping at straws here.

"Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.

Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.

 whembly wrote:
If it were anyone else... that person would be in serious legal gak.

While your naiveté is charming, I highly doubt this.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that have some sort of security clearance. How many prosecutions under this statute actually occur? How many military officers accidently send classified material to their fantasy football buddies? How many political appointees divulge things after a change in administration?

As a rule, laws regarding disclosure aren't enforced unless there is a known disclosure. that hasn't happened here, instead, there's a long and thorough look for possibly disclosures.

I don't know much about the specifics, but I really, really doubt all high ranking people with security clearances could survive an audit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.

Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.

That's the hope, but it's just not an interesting scandal. It's red meat to people that hated Hillary, but it's been my experience that people don't need a reason to hate her.

It doesn't help her reputation as "vaguely shady" of course.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.

Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.

Well, good luck!

"After weeks of exhaustive investigation Hilary wasn't guilty" isn't a rallying point except for the very, very sad.

 whembly wrote:


Will the American voters be willing to vote for a candidate who was under a threat of an FBI indictment because she’s “the devil they know” vs the devil they don’t know?

Yes, because the only people who care about this investigation are the people who wouldn't vote for her under any circumstance anyway.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If it were anyone else... that person would be in serious legal gak.

While your naiveté is charming, I highly doubt this.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that have some sort of security clearance. How many prosecutions under this statute actually occur? How many military officers accidently send classified material to their fantasy football buddies? How many political appointees divulge things after a change in administration?

As a rule, laws regarding disclosure aren't enforced unless there is a known disclosure. that hasn't happened here, instead, there's a long and thorough look for possibly disclosures.

I don't know much about the specifics, but I really, really doubt all high ranking people with security clearances could survive an audit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Hillary was investigated for X and not indicted," won't convince anyone except people like you, who never would have voted for her anyway.

Actually, it could be a rallying point around which right-wing anti-Trump people would come out and vote instead of staying home as many suggest they will.

That's the hope, but it's just not an interesting scandal. It's red meat to people that hated Hillary, but it's been my experience that people don't need a reason to hate her.

It doesn't help her reputation as "vaguely shady" of course.

If Clinton, or her staff doesn't get indicted... then, General Patreous (and others) needs a mulligan.

She and her staff are, at the very least, just as guilty as he was.

Do me a favor and read these posts by John R. Schindler. He's not a GOP honk (and really, an equal opportunity GOP/Democrat hater).... but, he's certainly the guy who knows a ton about classified procedures, John R. Schindler:

Previously a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he taught courses on security, strategy, intelligence, terrorism, and military history, before joining the NWC faculty, he spent nearly a decade with the super-secret National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer. There’s not much he can say about that, except that he worked problems in Eastern Europe and the Middle East with a counterespionage flavor, and he collaborated closely with other government agencies who would probably prefer he didn’t mention them. He’s also served as an officer specializing in cryptology (now called information warfare for no particular reason) in the U.S. Navy Reserve.

The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails

EmailGate Gets Worse for Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s Mounting EmailGate Troubles

Will Hillary’s Emails Burn the White House?

Hillary’s Emailgate: Understanding Security Classification

What Russian Intelligence Knows About Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies

Spies Don’t Buy Hillary’s Email Excuses

Hillary’s Email Troubles Are Far From Over

Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear

Why Hillary’s EmailGate Matters

Hillary Clinton Put Spies’ Lives at Risk

National Security Disasters and the Latest Clinton Email Dump

NY Times Report Debunks Severity of Emailgate With Classic Clintonian Wordsmithing

Hillary Has an NSA Problem

After reading his posts and the plethora of links this author provides to educate his readers... these are the criminal U.S. codes to think about:

18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

Then, play the what ifs...

Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...

And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.

What do you think the response should be?

You say that like the Clinton's are not above the law....

 whembly wrote:
Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...

And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.

What do you think the response should be?

I'm not going to read a pile of stuff. It's possible she broke the law. It's possible that she didn't. I don't know the law or the facts well enough to make a judgment. I'm not going to pretend like I understand this enough to be outraged. I'm sure you can explain to me why I should be, but that's not going to change that I don't care.

I don't think I'd care much if it was the GOP front runner either. I think if you look at my posting history, you probably haven't seen my get overly bent about scandals, regardless of side.

Do I think the coverage of this would be much different if it was the GOP frontrunner? Maybe? I think we'd all be excited at a GOP frontrunner that had actually actively participated in the Federal Government, instead of trying to burn it down (that's my partisan humor). Seriously, you have to remember all the stuff about W that boiled up in 2000? The DUI? The sketchy ANG service? This stuff comes up, man. It's background noise.

It's a fun football to kick around, but nobody cares, or at least nobody cares enough to change their vote over it.

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...

And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.

What do you think the response should be?

I'm not going to read a pile of stuff. It's possible she broke the law. It's possible that she didn't. I don't know the law or the facts well enough to make a judgment. I'm not going to pretend like I understand this enough to be outraged. I'm sure you can explain to me why I should be, but that's not going to change that I don't care.

I don't think I'd care much if it was the GOP front runner either. I think if you look at my posting history, you probably haven't seen my get overly bent about scandals, regardless of side.

Do I think the coverage of this would be much different if it was the GOP frontrunner? Maybe? I think we'd all be excited at a GOP frontrunner that had actually actively participated in the Federal Government, instead of trying to burn it down (that's my partisan humor). Seriously, you have to remember all the stuff about W that boiled up in 2000? The DUI? The sketchy ANG service? This stuff comes up, man. It's background noise.

It's a fun football to kick around, but nobody cares, or at least nobody cares enough to change their vote over it.

All I can say is that, if you spent the time to read those links with a non-partisan eye and do some research (the author provides numerous links for you to springboard further digging). I'd argue that you may change your mind in this...

I believe it's much more serious than a "fun football",

We're talking about the idea that our nation's classified information (so far, over 2000 born-on-date emails been discovered) may have been egregiously compromised by a Clinton States Department, all in the name of subverting public FOIA requests. We're talking about intentional acts... not, an accidental spillage.

We *know* that the DOJ isn't going to want to indict Clinton and her staff... because that's actually a POLITICAL question.

But, we will want to know if the FBI would recommend indictment.

There's merits for some serious vetting by the FBI... no? This is something we would WANT to know about prior to the November elections... right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
You say that like the Clinton's are not above the law....

I know I'm preaching to the choir here... but, no political figure should be *accepted* as above the law...

 whembly wrote:

Then, play the what ifs...

Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...

And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.

What do you think the response should be?

You're still trying to push the idea that anyone who isn't outraged must be in the tank for the Democrats?

 whembly wrote:

We're talking about the idea that our nation's classified information (so far, over 2000 born-on-date emails been discovered) may have been egregiously compromised by a Clinton States Department, all in the name of subverting public FOIA requests. We're talking about intentional acts... not, an accidental spillage.

That's one interpretation, sure. But please don't pretend it is the only possible one. Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Then, play the what ifs...

Just look at all the evidence together, and replace the name from Sec of State Hillary Clinton to a Generic Sec of State under a GOP Administration...

And that same Generic Sec of State under the previous GOP Administration, is NOW THE GOP FRONTRUNNER.

What do you think the response should be?

You're still trying to push the idea that anyone who isn't outraged must be in the tank for the Democrats?

I wouldn't say "in the tank"... no.

But, willful ignorance? Yep.

 whembly wrote:

We're talking about the idea that our nation's classified information (so far, over 2000 born-on-date emails been discovered) may have been egregiously compromised by a Clinton States Department, all in the name of subverting public FOIA requests. We're talking about intentional acts... not, an accidental spillage.

That's one interpretation, sure. But please don't pretend it is the only possible one. Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

So... it's either incompetence?

Or... it's a malfeasance act?

One or the other. You choose...

Not exactly something you'd want on a potential Presidential candidate...

Like a wanna be theocrat or a racist xenophobic misogynist

No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.

Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.

Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.

I choose politically savvy enough to know how far she can go before getting indicted and throwing away the election while at the same time making the opposite side chase their tails to find anything that sticks while looking foolish in the process.

How's that going to turn out for her? Stay tuned, but I have my bets...