President Obama endorses Hillary Clinton

[michal1980]

Obama will make sure she wont get in trouble.

 

[Rakehellion]

this is probably the clearest sign yet that the indictment probably isn't going to happen.

There was never a chance of an indictment in the first place.

 

[buckshot24]

Obama said there was no political influence on the investigation. He wouldn't lie.

 

[fskimospy]

There was never a chance of an indictment in the first place.

You missed the script. If she's indicted that's proof that she's corrupt. If she's not indicted that's proof that both her and Obama are corrupt. Under no circumstances do conservatives consider that they were wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

heh

Hahaha.

edit: I don't see this tweet on his page.

 

[wetech]

I'm not saying Obama is influencing the investigation, I'm saying the investigation is influencing Obama.

he's a cautious guy, I can't see him endorsing Clinton without first putting out feelers to the FBI to see if that's a good idea or not... if he got a yellow light from the FBI, he could have come out saying he was going to stay neutral until the convention, or he could have given a merely perfunctory endorsement rather than a whole-hearted one.

/tinfoil

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog#today

11:15 AM
The President meets with Senator Bernie Sanders
Oval Office
Closed Press


[...]


3:25 PM
The President meets with Attorney General Lynch
Oval Office
Closed Press

 

[DrPizza]

Phew, I'm glad the President is "in the know" for what his employees might do while under his command. Thanks for clarifying his role in the e-mail "investigation".

I think that what they're saying is that before making decisions, Obama isn't really one to shoot from the hip - he weighs the evidence before making a decision. That doesn't mean he knows what ever person is doing - but he will find out what people know, if their information could have a significant impact on the decision he makes.

 

[Subyman]

Hillary would probably suffer greatly for much less though. A mere indictment that where she isn't actually found guilty for anything afterwards (or accepting any pleas) would still hurt pretty badly.

I doubt she will get an indictment. She will probably get something equivalent to a formal complaint and the policies will be updated. Petraeus actively told someone who did not have clearance classified information. Hillary set up a server where classified information may be passed in a possibly unsecured way. There is no evidence that classified information was passed to an unauthorized person nor is there evidence that an unauthorized person breached her servers. In a lot of cases the information was only classified during the investigation, after she sent it. I believe there are only a handful of instances where classified information was passed through the server to a person authorized to see it.

IMO is the server conformed to whatever encryption standards the State Department requires then it was mostly an act of guile on Hillary's part. A show of her willingness to hide information from public accountability that ultimately did far more harm than good to her image.

That is why this is most likely a breach of policy, but not a criminal act. We will see. More could come to light.

 

[buckshot24]

IMO is the server conformed to whatever encryption standards the State Department requires then it was mostly an act of guile on Hillary's part. A show of her willingness to hide information from public accountability that ultimately did far more harm than good to her image.

That is why this is most likely a breach of policy, but not a criminal act. We will see. More could come to light.

Isn't deliberately avoiding FOIA requests a violation of law?

 

[openwheel]

What is the big deal about Hilary using private email server again? I don't get the big fuss. I use gov email everyday, and if World Peace depends on it, I would totally switch to a private server too.

 

[openwheel]

Isn't deliberately avoiding FOIA requests a violation of law?

I am a Republican, let's deregulate and tear FOIA into pieces. No? Not this one?

EPA for sure though.

 

[ivwshane]

Isn't deliberately avoiding FOIA requests a violation of law?

You'd have to prove "deliberate" intent for one. There is also a specific process you have to go through for complaints on how a foia request is handled.

https://www.foia.gov/faq.html

http://www.foiadvocates.com/faq.html

 

[Subyman]

Isn't deliberately avoiding FOIA requests a violation of law?

It would depend on the legalese. I'm certainly not an expert in that area. I'm sure we will find out eventually. Her using the servers to reduce transparency would be the obvious reason, but, as we know, proving what is obvious is often difficult in court lol

 

[Exophase]

I doubt she will get an indictment. She will probably get something equivalent to a formal complaint and the policies will be updated. Petraeus actively told someone who did not have clearance classified information. Hillary set up a server where classified information may be passed in a possibly unsecured way. There is no evidence that classified information was passed to an unauthorized person nor is there evidence that an unauthorized person breached her servers. In a lot of cases the information was only classified during the investigation, after she sent it. I believe there are only a handful of instances where classified information was passed through the server to a person authorized to see it.

I don't think she'll be indicted, but I also don't think that the Patreus case outcome really supports that one way or the other.

I would argue that the server administrator Bryan Pagliano was not properly authorized as he lacked necessary security clearance. In some respect the e-mail contents were "passed" to him, or at least easily available to him without any oversight that I know of.

IMO is the server conformed to whatever encryption standards the State Department requires then it was mostly an act of guile on Hillary's part. A show of her willingness to hide information from public accountability that ultimately did far more harm than good to her image.

That is why this is most likely a breach of policy, but not a criminal act. We will see. More could come to light.

It may have not been encrypted initially: http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/

In my eyes, what the incident most suggests to me is that Hillary is a control freak - which probably sounds pretty innocuous or even desirable for a POTUS but I have some issue with it. That and she seems to think she's above the rules. Wanting to keep secrets from the government/public is at least a possibility.

The other thing I think damaged her image in this debacle is how much it looks like she said untruthful or misleading things in response to initial investigation. And suggesting that she's been exhaustively overclassified in light of dozens of messages deemed Top Secret. I could see a lot of stuff being conservatively classified a notch or two higher than they should be, but saying that Top Secret shouldn't be classified at all is a really bold claim that suggests huge incompetence or malfeasance in the classification board. Or that she was poorly qualified in part of her role as Secretary of State. Or that she really knew some of the e-mails were sensitive and didn't care. That last one really strikes me as the most realistic.

 

[Subyman]

I completely agree that she mishandled the story. Her hand waving away the issue saying she didn't know what wiping the hard drive was. Really dumb. IMO if she would have owned up to it and said she was misinformed on the policy or she cut corners or whatever it would have been much better for her at this point. Playing dumb and belittling the concerns just added fuel to the fire.

 

[buckshot24]

I completely agree that she mishandled the story. Her hand waving away the issue saying she didn't know what wiping the hard drive was. Really dumb. IMO if she would have owned up to it and said she was misinformed on the policy or she cut corners or whatever it would have been much better for her at this point. Playing dumb and belittling the concerns just added fuel to the fire.

I couldn't agree more. She's still lying about it though.

 

[Exophase]

I completely agree that she mishandled the story. Her hand waving away the issue saying she didn't know what wiping the hard drive was. Really dumb. IMO if she would have owned up to it and said she was misinformed on the policy or she cut corners or whatever it would have been much better for her at this point. Playing dumb and belittling the concerns just added fuel to the fire.

I kind of feel like the way she denies things, spins, and refuses to admit fault or error is a lot like Trump :/

She just doesn't look as foolish while doing it.

 

[openwheel]

This whole emailing thing is so petty. So petty.

Come on Republicans, let's bury her with some racist comments.

 

[ivwshane]

I kind of feel like the way she denies things, spins, and refuses to admit fault or error is a lot like Trump :/

She just doesn't look as foolish while doing it.

You know she admitted wrong doing already right?

 

[buckshot24]

I kind of feel like the way she denies things, spins, and refuses to admit fault or error is a lot like Trump :/

She just doesn't look as foolish while doing it.

She's a more disciplined liar.

 

[Exophase]

You know she admitted wrong doing already right?

I didn't mean to say that she never admits it, she eventually does after it's really, really blatant. Usually in a pretty mild way and with a "but" appended to it. Like how she admitted she was wrong about the Iraq War vote.. in like 2014.

 

[ivwshane]

I didn't mean to say that she never admits it, she eventually does after it's really, really blatant. Usually in a pretty mild way and with a "but" appended to it. Like how she admitted she was wrong about the Iraq War vote.. in like 2014.

You seem to have a habit of needing to correct what you really meant to say.

 

[Exophase]

You seem to have a habit of needing to correct what you really meant to say.

And you just went from saying I must be new here to saying I must have a habit in my posts.

Hillary has a habit of not admitting fault or error when confronted with things upfront. I didn't say she refuses to ever admit them later and I didn't intend to imply that. Bui I can see how it'd be interpreted that way.

 

[ivwshane]

And you just went from saying I must be new here to saying I must have a habit in my posts.

Hillary has a habit of not admitting fault or error when confronted with things upfront. I didn't say she refuses to ever admit them later and I didn't intend to imply that. Bui I can see how it'd be interpreted that way.

Are you buckshats brother?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not saying Obama is influencing the investigation, I'm saying the investigation is influencing Obama.

he's a cautious guy, I can't see him endorsing Clinton without first putting out feelers to the FBI to see if that's a good idea or not... if he got a yellow light from the FBI, he could have come out saying he was going to stay neutral until the convention, or he could have given a merely perfunctory endorsement rather than a whole-hearted one.

As I've said before, I'm sure Obama has been apprised of the FBI investigation all along the way. It's not like he woke up yesterday & decided he should probably call Comey before saying anything.

Coming out for either contender before the winner was certain would have been foolish & counter productive.

After Tuesday, Bernie could win every remaining pledged delegate & not catch Hillary. Not even come close. Her lead in votes & pledged delegates is so huge that the super delegates won't go against her, obviously. She only needs 180 of them, maybe less, out of a total of 715.