IG: Some Emails on Clinton's Server Were Beyond Top Secret

[Zorkorist]

Trump is a salesman, not an administrator. I doubt that you know enough about running a business to know the difference.

And you do realize that actually running the government as a profitable business would mean that it collects more in taxes than if pays out in services, right? Literally by definition?

Hell, I'd be happy if he collected enough taxes to break even.

OR CUT SPENDING.

-John

 

[Vic]

He couldn't come out much richer than the Clinton's and I am pretty sure his monetary gain is not his goal in running for office. He sees the same sickening government I see, and is stepping in to try and stop socialism, stop communism, stop nannyism, etc.

Take charge, take responsibility, make some hard choices for the long term good of the nation.

-John

You're so naive and deluded it's just disgusting.

 

[Zorkorist]

Nobody seems to ever talk about cutting spending... cutting the Federal Government's size, reach and power.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

You're so naive and deluded it's just disgusting.

You go on and vote for Hillary, Vic, a choice that disgusts me.

-John

 

[Vic]

Hell, I'd be happy if he collected enough taxes to break even.

OR CUT SPENDING.

-John

What you're saying is that you want to pay more in taxes than what you get back in services. Sounds like big government to me.
Plus, you're full of shit anyway. Trump's plan is to increase spending.

 

[Bowfinger]

More likely the FBI investigation will determine whether the FBI needs to be added to the list of entities smearing Mrs. Clinton.

BTW - if Mrs. Clinton moving these classified files (which you now presumably admit are classified) to another IT place or to her lawyer's office is acceptable because of this competing directive to preserve everything (hitherto-fore understood to mean turn it over to the proper government agency) then couldn't Hillary just as easily choose to transfer them to, say, the Kremlin? Or Disneyworld? Or perhaps put them into space where they would be safe? After all, the 2009 law just mandated that they be turned over, it didn't specify in which millennium.

I have a point here. If "preserve everything" trumps properly handling such documents, then couldn't literally anyone use that excuse? Of course Petraeus had classified documents at his home - he was following the directive to "preserve everything". How can he make sure everything is preserved unless he holds a copy? Likewise, how is his biographer fundamentally different from Bryan Pagliano or Justin Cooper, much less the fine folks at Platte River Networks or Datto Inc whom Hillary likely never even met? Why does Hillary, as a Secretary of State who cannot tell what is classified unless someone else tells her piece by piece, enjoy the right to extend access to someone without security clearance but David Petraeus, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, does not? Why does Petraeus not get to claim that the information is not classified until (and except when) he says it's classified?

You know, I'm trying to have an honest and intelligent discussion with you, and you just don't seem to be interested. It is common practice in legal proceedings for involved parties to be ordered to preserve all relevant evidence so it is available for discovery. In this case, a federal judge ordered the State Department and Clinton to preserve all documents and email as part of pending litigation. (And no, a court order to preserve does NOT mean turn it over to the government.)

Clinton's attorney interpreted this to mean he could not alter the backup of Clinton's email by removing those messages that were retroactively declared classified, even though State told him to delete them. I cannot judge if that's the correct decision or not. I suspect a federal judge is the superior authority.

I also understand Clinton's attorney does not have an appropriate security clearance. He did work with government security officials (I don't know specifically who) to ensure he was storing the flash drive in an appropriate, secure manner, however. This seems to have satisfied Uncle Sam for now since they have not pursued it further.

Your Petraeus example is a red herring. First, Petraeus knew the documents he had were classified because they were marked as classified. He broke the law when he kept them. He also knowingly shared them with the intent that what's-her-name would read them. Clinton (reportedly) did not know her email had (allegedly) classified information when she provided it to her attorney (or Cooper or Pagliano). Clinton states she did not knowingly share classified information.

Did Clinton tell the truth? That remains to be determined.

That's it for me tonight. I have plans in the morning.

 

[Vic]

You go on and vote for Hillary, Vic, a choice that disgusts me.

-John

It doesn't matter who I vote for. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The choices are the fascist, Hillary, and the socialist.
I can't help it if you're stupid enough to believe that Trump is going to cut spending when his actual economic plan is exactly the opposite.

 

[theeedude]

The later "classified" info came from her personal friend, Sid Blumenthal.

 

[werepossum]

Trump is a salesman, not an administrator. I doubt that you know enough about running a business to know the difference.

And you do realize that actually running the government as a profitable business would mean that it collects more in taxes than if pays out in services, right? Literally by definition?

Whom do you imagine is the administrator of the Trump empire if not Trump? With a net worth greater than the GDP of many countries in a variety of sectors over several nations in an ever-changing world, it certainly doesn't run itself.

He couldn't come out much richer than the Clinton's and I am pretty sure his monetary gain is not his goal in running for office. He sees the same sickening government I see, and is stepping in to try and stop socialism, stop communism, stop nannyism, etc.

Take charge, take responsibility, make some hard choices for the long term good of the nation.

-John

He's already way, way richer than the Clintons. I too am sure that his monetary gain is not his motivation. Neither is it Hillary's, for all her grasping. It's the raw power to order the nation to your liking. Trump is (like Romney) an outlier in having been wildly successful in the private sector, but the wealth is always a secondary factor.

I suspect that should Trump gain the White House, he'll find the Republicans as big an obstacle to eliminating big government as are the Democrats. Very different faces, same coin. For that matter, all that power might look a lot different to Trump if he found himself holding it. Power tends to have that effect.

 

[Zorkorist]

So stalemate, and the best a fiscal conservative can hope for.

Hillary, or Bernie, and the congress and the justices, are going to dive ever deeper into the quagmire of socialism, communism, and debt.

With Trump, we have a fighting chance of stalemate.

-John

 

[werepossum]

So stalemate, and the best a fiscal conservative can hope for.

Hillary, or Bernie, and the congress and the justices, are going to dive ever deeper into the quagmire of socialism, communism, and debt.

With Trump, we have a fighting chance of stalemate.

-John

Maybe. I do love me some stalemate, but Trump is not someone I had ever considered a serious contender for the White House.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nope. Powell (only nominally a Republican anyway - he's a big Obama supporter) primarily used a commercial account, and Rice like Albright had State accounts but very seldom if ever used email. Many of the Bush administration did have such accounts though.

However, those accounts are why I think the GOP will never seriously push to prosecute Mrs. Clinton. I'm sure the Pubbies use those accounts from time to time to discuss matters that are or should be classified or sensitive, to avoid having the discussions appear in the public record. We don't have those records, but hackers overwhelmingly lean left and there are lots of potential GOP targets - not just SecStates, but all Congresscritters and staffers exposed to classified material - so they can never really know that we won't get to see those records. Plus, they don't want to lose that flexibility for themselves. It's one thing to criticize the other party, quite another to establish precedent that might bite them too. And anything that applies to a SecState will apply to any elected, appointed, or hired official.

For Repub strategists, it's really just about making a mountain out of a molehill & then keeping it puffed up as long as possible, stringing along the rubes with the usual conspiracy theories, leaks & innuendo.

Take a look at the record since 2008. At the bottom of every scandal they've trumped up there's nothing of consequence except the bottom of the heap o' bullshit they piled on top of it.

That bullshit has enduring qualities in the attitudes it promotes among the faithful, in the way it shapes the way they look at the world. A fair % of them will always believe in the bullshit because they don't have the time or the inclination to dig through it, whether that's Iraqi WMD's, Obama's birth cert or the astounding FUD they spread over Benghazi.

The chances of this turning out any different are near zero & they've known it all along.

 

[buckshot24]

Clinton states she did not knowingly share classified information.

Shucks, case closed guys. Clinton says she did nothing wrong so I guess she did nothing wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

What you're saying is that you want to pay more in taxes than what you get back in services. Sounds like big government to me.
Plus, you're full of shit anyway. Trump's plan is to increase spending.

Is that how you spin the government not spending more than it takes in?

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that how you spin the government not spending more than it takes in?

As if Trump's pie in the sky tax cuts to unleash the power of Capitalism followed by a series of magic asterisks has jack or shit to do with a balanced budget. It's the Reagan/Bush song & dance all over again.

 

[Vic]

Is that how you spin the government not spending more than it takes in?

How is that spin? Government takes in money by taxation and spends on services. So if a government spends less than it takes in, then it is by literal definition, collecting more in taxes from the public than it spends on services to public. With the exception of some form of an external revenue source, there's no way around it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Shucks, case closed guys. Clinton says she did nothing wrong so I guess she did nothing wrong.

You remain a lying POS. My very next sentences were:

"Did Clinton tell the truth? That remains to be determined."
​

But perhaps "liar" is too harsh. I suppose you could just be so stupid you can't handle a thought longer than a single sentence.

 

[fskimospy]

He couldn't come out much richer than the Clinton's and I am pretty sure his monetary gain is not his goal in running for office. He sees the same sickening government I see, and is stepping in to try and stop socialism, stop communism, stop nannyism, etc.

Take charge, take responsibility, make some hard choices for the long term good of the nation.

-John

Trump wants to dramatically increase spending. He's actually by far the least conservative candidate in the republican primary.

The reason Trump would be a horrible president is only somewhat related to his policies. Even if he had the best policy plan ever his childish temperament would be disqualifying all on its own.

 

[theeedude]

FBI is investigating. IG is investigating. So far, nothing illegal. If her personal friend Sid Blumenthal sends her info to her personal account, even if State department later classifies it as top secret, there is nothing wrong with it. He got that information through his sources and sent it to Hillary, not the other way around.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So far, nothing illegal.

Did they tell you? Who's your contact?

 

[ivwshane]

Did they tell you? Who's your contact?

Did you have something to the contrary because so far there hasn't been any charges for illegal acts being committed. Lots of claims, lots of innuendo, lots of speculation, and a whole lot of nothing.

 

[Fern]

I don't think Bernie can call her out without losing support and donors, and certainly not without losing voters and political capital.
-snip-

Right.

The Bern is wise not to jump into this.

Never Interfere With an Enemy While He’s in the Process of Destroying Himself

If the emails take Hillary down, he'll want to pick up her supporters. No need to offend them by attacking Hillary.

I see no gain whatsoever for him to involve himself.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you have something to the contrary because so far there hasn't been any charges for illegal acts being committed. Lots of claims, lots of innuendo, lots of speculation, and a whole lot of nothing.

Yep. Just more Benghazi. But they gotta dream...

Confirmation bias rules right wing headsets. Take a look at the Bundy boys to see an extreme form of it.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
True, but assume for a moment that you are Barack Hussein Obama and you are pondering your legacy. Would that legacy be brighter with a President Clinton II, who you declined to prosecute, or with a President Trump or President Cruz? You know that Hillary will continue your policies and invest as much taxpayers' money as required to keep them going and hopefully functioning as intended. You also know that Trump or Cruz will at best allow them to continue with the bare minimum increase, for they have other priorities, and may well tear them down entirely. You also know that you absolutely own the media (except for outlets like Fox News which will call you the anti-Christ no matter which way you go) and that Americans as a group have short memories.

Seems to me that's a pretty easy Hillary vote.

Hillary laid a big 'steaming pile' right in Obama's lap with her email antics.

I agree that he cannot be seen as the cause of preventing Hillary (and thus the Dems) from becoming President.

But I don't see a "Hillary vote" as "easy". No, he's in a tough spot. I think he's done the smart thing so far. He needs to be seen as supportive of her (to an extent of course).

I see little chance of him coming out of this totally unscathed. There's so little trust in the govt, particularly and most importantly among the young, I'll bet even if the FBI doesn't recommend charges people will scream that the fix is in.

Assuming he would/could pressure the FBI into sweeping this under the rug (and I'm not suggesting he would or even could), is that really helping elect her (Dems) to the Presidency? The mere appearance of such corruption could generate enough apathy, or even antipathy, particularly among the young that the Repubs win the election. If Hillary doesn't win the election this thing is going to be 'sliced and diced' ad nauseam. Obama could come out looking very bad; he could take a lot of criticism for failing to find the right calculus.

If the FBI recommends charges and the DoJ declined to prosecute, these problems are greatly magnified. Again, many (non-rabid Hillary supporters) will assume the fix is in and it could doom her election chances.

I think the timing of the decision is also quite important. If she wins the nomination before the FBI investigation is concluded and a recommendation issued to prosecute, Obama and the Dems are in a real quandary; possibly a no-win situation. I think she'd be fatally flawed and it would be too late to run Bern or Joe. I think many would make the case this would largely be Obama's fault for not ensuring that this was resolved timely.

You can look at this from many perspectives and come up with different answers/predictions with each. All carry risk to Obama and his legacy.

As usual winning solves many problems. But I think Obama's betting on that is an 'all or nothing' gamble on his legacy and one where it's out of his hands and in that of the voters.

BTW: How's Hillary's relationship with Valerie Jarrett? :sneaky:

Fern

 

[buckshot24]

You remain a lying POS. My very next sentences were:

"Did Clinton tell the truth? That remains to be determined."
​

But perhaps "liar" is too harsh. I suppose you could just be so stupid you can't handle a thought longer than a single sentence.

I did miss that bit, I was on my way out the door. Sorry for that.

But still, what she has claimed about this is really not relevant and you can't call the comparison of Petraeus as a red herring based on her claims.