2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Paleface

I think its a huge leap of faith to say that everyone who donated money to the Clinton Foundation did so in a wink wink nod nod sort of way to get Hillary elected as the next POTUS.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No, Hillary may be pandering to rich donors but she's no worse than the rest of the GOP field who aren't billionaires themselves.

Oh yes she is! Read through this article. Now tell me that the press, democrats and most of the western world wouldn’t have been storming the castle, with pitchforks and torches, will shouts of “TRAITOR” of a Republican candidate. Yet, I’ll bet almost no one knows of this… because it’s the Clintons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

And I'd love to see your sources on these donors who have 'horrible human rights violations and treatment of women'.

See my list above. I think you'll be able to pick out several countries that fit into that category.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

I think its a huge leap of faith to say that everyone who donated money to the Clinton Foundation did so in a wink wink nod nod sort of way to get Hillary elected as the next POTUS.

You don’t really think those 32,000 Hillary Clinton deleted emails were all about Chelsea’s wedding and to her husband (who doesn’t use email), do you?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

The email scandal is getting worse by the minute for Hillary Clinton.

This is very early in the US presidential 4-year election cycle. By this time next year the email controversy will not be "news" to the voter, and such voters historically have very short memories. Furthermore, the news media is first a business, and it's driven by ratings, which in turn attracts advertisers and profits. "News" that's old has no traction with ratings; there isn't even a name for old "news," other than archive. I would guess that today's Clinton email controversy will be dead long before the November 2016 election in the media and voter's mind. The media and GOP are doing Clinton a favour by raising this issue too early.

Personally I see no quality "declared as running" presidential candidates offered by either the Democrats or Republicans today, and the fact that the telly entertainer Trump is leading the GOP in the primary polls today exemplifies the poor status of Republican leadership. In like manner, I find Hillary Clinton an unimaginative bore, and as the current front runner for Democrats, a sad commentary on their leadership.

The growing number of voters that list themselves as independent and without a party speaks to the lack of leadership in both parties today, and these independents will more than likely determine the outcome of the next presidential election. And if Trump does not get the GOP nomination, and goes independent, I doubt that these independent voters will take him seriously. All an independent Trump would do is split the GOP, and allow Clinton to win by default (which is the GOPs greatest November 2016 fear).

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This is very early in the US presidential 4-year election cycle. By this time next year the email controversy will not be "news" to the voter, and such voters historically have very short memories. Furthermore, the news media is first a business, and it's driven by ratings, which in turn attracts advertisers and profits. "News" that's old has no traction with ratings; there isn't even a name for old "news," other than archive. I would guess that today's Clinton email controversy will be dead long before the November 2016 election in the media and voter's mind. The media and GOP are doing Clinton a favour by raising this issue too early.

Personally I see no quality "declared as running" presidential candidates offered by either the Democrats or Republicans today, and the fact that the telly entertainer Trump is leading the GOP in the primary polls today exemplifies the poor status of Republican leadership. In like manner, I find Hillary Clinton an unimaginative bore, and as the current front runner for Democrats, a sad commentary on their leadership.

The growing number of voters that list themselves as independent and without a party speaks to the lack of leadership in both parties today, and these independents will more than likely determine the outcome of the next presidential election. And if Trump does not get the GOP nomination, and goes independent, I doubt that these independent voters will take him seriously. All an independent Trump would do is split the GOP, and allow Clinton to win by default (which is the GOPs greatest November 2016 fear).

I disagree. The news keeps getting worse for Clinton on the email front. And republicans are sure to keep it alive and well up until the election. What Hillary Clinton needs now is a way out to recover politically from the downward spiral her campaign has been going. And the only way to end it is a presidential pardon from Barack Obama. FBI, DOJ, the Intelligence Community and the State Department inquiries will cease as soon as the pardon is issued. Then and only then will it become old news.

I do agree with you that a Trump Independent run will split the GOP and insure a win for Democrats.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

You don’t really think those 32,000 Hillary Clinton deleted emails were all about Chelsea’s wedding and to her husband (who doesn’t use email), do you?

I don't see the point of speculating on the contents of someones deleted private emails. Things would get farcical pretty quickly if that's how candidates are deemed to be electable.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

I don't see the point of speculating on the contents of someones deleted private emails. Things would get farcical pretty quickly if that's how candidates are deemed to be electable.

So when Nixon said "I am not a crook," that should have been the end of it? Were are the Woodward and Bernstein's of today? Come to think of it, where are Woodward and Bernstein?

Wompa1

Paleface wrote: »

I don't see the point of speculating on the contents of someones deleted private emails. Things would get farcical pretty quickly if that's how candidates are deemed to be electable.

The fact she sent them to her own personal mail server in the first place is grounds for an investigation....the US is very compliance heavy. She can claim she didn't break any compliance rules but does anyone believe that?

Paleface

I should clarify that I'm not saying Clinton is innocent. There is clearly something dodgy going on.

But if you are going down that road with her then you really should be doing the same for all candidates which is not going to happen.

Wompa1

Paleface wrote: »

I should clarify that I'm not saying Clinton is innocent. There is clearly something dodgy going on.

But if you are going down that road with her then you really should be doing the same for all candidates which is not going to happen.

Absolutely! They should have their feet held to the fire just like Romney and his taxes.

Manach

To echo an earlier poster; this administration has cracked down on leakage of information and launched numerous actions against individuals who even hinted at breaking security. The journalist Glen Grenwald had noted the high number of jailed over such. This while a distraction IMHO the email issue will continue to dominate while Clinton in the race.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I disagree. The news keeps getting worse for Clinton on the email front. And republicans are sure to keep it alive and well up until the election. What Hillary Clinton needs now is a way out to recover politically from the downward spiral her campaign has been going. And the only way to end it is a presidential pardon from Barack Obama. FBI, DOJ, the Intelligence Community and the State Department inquiries will cease as soon as the pardon is issued. Then and only then will it become old news.

We can then agree to disagree. I doubt that Clinton will be charged by DOJ after the FBI investigation, other than a statement regarding her lack of judgment in using private emails in the conduct of Department of State business (similar to the lack of judgment by Jeb Bush when Florida's governor, and Sarah Palin when Alaska's governor, both having a history of using private emails for state business). I bet today's voter has forgotten that Palin's yahoo account had been cracked by a Florida teenager when Palin was McCain's Republican running mate for US Vice President. But it's not "news" today, and long forgotten in the voter's short memory.

Furthermore, I would think that using private email accounts to conduct state business has been used by most high political office holders including those in US Congress (until it was outlawed). So going after Hillary and ignoring Jeb Bush and the rest of them on both party sides is implementing a double standard at best, partisan politics at worst in the spirit of the 2-party warnings made by John Adams.

Methinks that the GOP knows that they cannot keep this issue alive until November 2016 in the voter's mind, or the news media (because it will not be "news" a year from now); rather, they are attempting to disrupt the Democratic party confidence in their front running candidate today, and hope to encourage other Democrats like Biden or Gore to challenge Hilliary. They also want to distract the voter from the mess that the GOP leadership is in today, by creating a fuss about Hilliary; i.e., a distraction play.

Amerika wrote: »

I do agree with you that a Trump Independent run will split the GOP and insure a win for Democrats.

Here we agree. Trump reminds me of the 1992 Ross Perot presidential campaign (18.91% popular vote), where he ran independent and split the GOP, allowing Bill Clinton (43.01%) to win, defeating George Bush (37.45%).

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

We can then agree to disagree. I doubt that Clinton will be charged by DOJ after the FBI investigation, other than a statement regarding her lack of judgment in using private emails in the conduct of Department of State business (similar to the lack of judgment by Jeb Bush when Florida's governor, and Sarah Palin when Alaska's governor, both having a history of using private emails for state business). I bet today's voter has forgotten that Palin's yahoo account had been cracked by a Florida teenager when Palin was McCain's Republican running mate for US Vice President. But it's not "news" today, and long forgotten in the voter's short memory.

Furthermore, I would think that using private email accounts to conduct state business has been used by most high political office holders including those in US Congress (until it was outlawed). So going after Hillary and ignoring Jeb Bush and the rest of them on both party sides is implementing a double standard at best, partisan politics at worst in the spirit of the 2-party warnings made by John Adams.

I think you're right about the DOJ, as it's become little more than an arm of the Democratic party for the last 6 years. And the State Department informed a judge it will not work with DOJ, the FBI or other agencies in their investigations. Screw the people, long live Hillary!

And Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin didn't break the law with their email policies, Hillary Clinton did.

So Clinton giving a thumb drive to her private citizen lawyer, in which he held onto for 6 months, with contained extremely classified information is nothing to be concerned about? Nothing to see here, please move along? Clinton paranoia should trump the law and public safety? Yeah, just who we want in the White House.

Just imagine if this was all done under a Republican administration. Just imagine!

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin didn't break the law with their email policies, Hillary Clinton did.

You may be in error here with the timing of the policy that restricted the use of private emails for state business? When Hilliary was Secretary of State, I do not believe that policy was in place, and you cannot have retroactive law in the US.

EDIT: See Wall Street Journal's story "Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Use Came Before Recent Rule Changes," wherein it was stated:

The Federal Records Act requires government agencies to preserve records documenting the “organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions” of an agency’s business. But it was only last year that Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, a law with a series of modern-day changes to improve recordkeeping and preservation.

The 2014 overhaul, which postdates Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, placed explicit limits on agency officials using private email accounts for official business. The new law said agency officials can’t create or send a government record on a private account unless they also copy or forward the email to their official government email address.

In any case, BOTH Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush exercised poor judgment by using private emails to conduct state business, and BOTH are running for president now, the only real difference being that one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. BOTH exercised poor judgment, Hillary as former US Senator and Secretary of State, and Jeb Bush as former governor. If you use their past actions as grounds to justify their qualifications for president, you cannot in fairness attack Hillary for poor email judgment, and completely ignore Jeb for doing the same thing.

Amerika wrote: »

So Clinton giving a thumb drive to her private citizen lawyer, in which he held onto for 6 months, with contained extremely classified information is nothing to be concerned about? Nothing to see here, please move along? Clinton paranoia should trump the law and public safety? Yeah, just who we want in the White House.

Don't forget Republican candidate and Tea Party faction favourite Sarah Palin (had she won US Vice Presidency), and one heartbeat away from the US presidency.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

You may be in error here with the timing of the policy that restricted the use of private emails for state business? When Hilliary was Secretary of State, I do not believe that policy was in place, and you cannot have retroactive law in the US. (Apologies, but I would have to research this in greater detail, and I don't have time at this moment)
In any case, BOTH Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush exercised poor judgment by using private emails to conduct state business, and BOTH are running for president now, the only real difference being that one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican. BOTH exercised poor judgment, Hillary as former US Senator and Secretary of State, and Jeb Bush as former governor. If you use their past actions as grounds to justify their qualifications for president, you cannot in fairness attack Hillary for poor email judgment, and completely ignore Jeb for doing the same thing.

It appears now with high probability that Hillary Clinton has broken several laws in her handling of classified data in regards to her email policies. How many people have been sent to jail for much less? And what laws did Jeb Bush break?

Don't forget Republican candidate and Tea Party faction favourite Sarah Palin (had she won US Vice Presidency), and one heartbeat away from the US presidency.

I’m sure Palin would have surrounded herself with a very good cabinet, and her reign as POTUS would have been uneventful. One thing for sure is she wouldn’t ever have gotten away with the slimy political shenanigans that Barack Obama has with his Executive Actions.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

It appears now with high probability that Hillary Clinton has broken several laws in her handling of classified data in regards to her email policies. How many people have been sent to jail for much less? And what laws did Jeb Bush break?

According to the investigating FBI and the Department of Justice, what official charges have been filed against Hilliary Clinton as of today? Furthermore, I thought that citizens of the US were innocent until proven guilty of breaking their nation's laws?

Amerika wrote: »

I’m sure Palin would have surrounded herself with a very good cabinet, and her reign as POTUS would have been uneventful. One thing for sure is she wouldn’t ever have gotten away with the slimy political shenanigans that Barack Obama has with his Executive Actions.

Sarah Palin resigned as Alaska's governor half-way through her first term, and resigned months after the presidential elections had concluded, not before. If she could not hold her office as governor of a state with a relatively small population and economy, how could she be qualified to hold the 2nd highest office in the nation? It should be remembered that she too was being investigated by a bi-partisan committee comprised of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats regarding her practices in government, and shortly after she had been forced to surrender her private emails that contained state business, she resigned and made the continued investigation by the Alaska government moot.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

According to the investigating FBI and the Department of Justice, what official charges have been filed against Hilliary Clinton as of today? Furthermore, I thought that citizens of the US were innocent until proven guilty of breaking their nation's laws?

I didn't say she was guilty, yet. But any other citizen or official would already have been arrested if they did what she did. The same prosecutor who took down General Petraeus for improper possession of classified information is now looking into Hillary Clinton's email server. Petraeus pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges after keeping physical copies of classified information locked in a desk drawer at his house, and his career is ruined. Clinton's possession of top secret information on her personal server is far worse than the Petraeus case. And she gave copies on a thumb drive to her lawyer. But I can almost guarantee nothing will be done to her simply because of who she is.

And I am reading that the FBI is not investigating Clintons questionable handling of her top secret information on her personal server, but rather if enemies like China and Russia have hacked into them.

Overheal

Well I for one will be scrutinizing the Elton John AIDS Foundation for any political leverage they gain from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well I for one will be scrutinizing the Elton John AIDS Foundation for any political leverage they gain from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

You can make light of it, but the 2016 US federal budget includes an estimated $31.7 BILLION (that's with a "B") for combined domestic and global HIV efforts. And that amount goes up every year.

Would you donate big money to a charitable organization that only spends 10% of what they bring in on actual charitable work, if there wasn't something else you might get in return? No? Well, neither would all those smart people donating wads of cash to the Clinton Foundation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It’s a game we play here on the East Coast. “The Six Degrees of Hilliary Clinton game” You find a horrible tragedy anywhere in the world and in six degrees or fewer - blame Hillary Clinton.

So in six degrees you can blame Clinton for just about everything bad in the world. It's a fun game.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2014/05/dupuy_the_six_degress_of_hilli.html

Amerika

Well, we’ve now heard from Bob Woodward on the Clinton email scandal. He compared the controversy over Hillary’s emails while Secretary of State to Nixon's cover-up of Watergate.

"Follow the trail here," Woodward said. "There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her, so if things have been erased here, there's a way to go back to who originated these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton."

He then continued, "It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes. Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his. ... Hillary Clinton initially took that position: 'I'm not turning this over, there's gonna be no cooperation.' Now they're cooperating. This has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty."

And we all know how things turned out for Nixon.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

It’s a game we play here on the East Coast. “The Six Degrees of Hilliary Clinton game” You find a horrible tragedy anywhere in the world and in six degrees or fewer - blame Hillary Clinton.

So in six degrees you can blame Clinton for just about everything bad in the world. It's a fun game.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2014/05/dupuy_the_six_degress_of_hilli.html

You can also just as easily link Kevin Bacon to everyone involved..

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

Well, we’ve now heard from Bob Woodward on the Clinton email scandal. He compared the controversy over Hillary’s emails while Secretary of State to Nixon's cover-up of Watergate.

"Follow the trail here," Woodward said. "There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her, so if things have been erased here, there's a way to go back to who originated these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton."

He then continued, "It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes. Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his. ... Hillary Clinton initially took that position: 'I'm not turning this over, there's gonna be no cooperation.' Now they're cooperating. This has to go on a long, long time, and the answers are probably not going to be pretty."

And we all know how things turned out for Nixon.

Fuzzy logic there Amerika, talk us through how this "similarity" to the Watergate scandal will result in things turning out like Nixon for Hillary Clinton, do you see her being impeached for illegal wiretapping? Using the FBI/CIA/IRS etc as weapons against her opponents? Because thats why things "turned out" the way they did for Nixon.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I think you're right about the DOJ, as it's become little more than an arm of the Democratic party for the last 6 years.

You want to get fired back at with the Bush presidency again? Because I could take you to Mordor and back again with the list of things that went on during that administration, and the DOJ never seemed too miffed.

So Clinton giving a thumb drive to her private citizen lawyer, in which he held onto for 6 months, with contained extremely classified information is nothing to be concerned about?

Not nothing, but certainly not much. Presumably the files were under rather obscene encryption.

Just imagine if this was all done under a Republican administration. Just imagine!

IT HAPPENED. ! 22 million emails! Head in the sand much!?

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

Fuzzy logic there Amerika, talk us through how this "similarity" to the Watergate scandal will result in things turning out like Nixon for Hillary Clinton, do you see her being impeached for illegal wiretapping? Using the FBI/CIA/IRS etc as weapons against her opponents? Because thats why things "turned out" the way they did for Nixon.

Nixon was not impeached. He did leave office in disgrace though because he, like Hillary, believed they were above the law in hiding their unlawful actions. Hillary should bow out of the race for the good of the country and lobby for Presidential pardon to escape judicial actions... similar to Nixon.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You want to get fired back at with the Bush presidency again? Because I could take you to Mordor and back again with the list of things that went on during that administration, and the DOJ never seemed too miffed.

Mordor??? Sounds like some fantasy land. Although that would be fitting I guess comparing this administration's DOJ actions to the last.

Not nothing, but certainly not much. Presumably the files were under rather obscene encryption.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. But you miss the obvious... It was illegal to do so!

IT HAPPENED. ! 22 million emails! Head in the sand much!?

Nothing like this (Clinton email scandal) ever happened under a Republican administration.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You can also just as easily link Kevin Bacon to everyone involved..

But he's not running for the presidency, and it's not as fun.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Nothing like this ever happened under a Republican administration.

Uhm,

Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush's sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.
The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.
As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.

...

2007 wrote:

Last week, the Republican National Committee threw up another roadblock, claiming it had lost four years' worth of e-mail messages by Karl Rove that were sent on a Republican Party account. Those messages, officials admitted, could include some about the United States attorneys. It is virtually impossible to erase e-mail messages fully, and the claims that they are gone are not credible.

...


Just to repeat: In 2007, the story was about millions of missing White House emails that were sought in connection to a Congressional investigation. Yet somehow the archiving of Clinton's emails today requires exponentially more coverage, and exceedingly more critical coverage.
Of course, back in 2007 Fox News seemed utterly uninterested in the Bush email story days after the news broke. A search of Fox archives locates only one panel discussion about the story and it featured two guests accusing Democrats of engineering a "fishing expedition."
From then-Fox co-host, Fred Barnes: "I mean, deleted e-mails, who cares?"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820

The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]
At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.
The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

But Overheal! That's only 5 million emails. Where do you get 22 million from?

Well, by 2009 technicians had recovered 22 million missing emails from the servers in question, when the administration/RNC only admitted to 5 million deleted emails. As to what happened to the content of these emails? Probably wasn't important enough for the republican-run media to report on.

http://gizmodo.com/5426338/re-re-re-re-re-re-re-iraq-22-million-lost-bush-white-house-emails-recovered

I find your statement to be Pants on Fire, sir.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Uhm,

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820



But Overheal! That's only 5 million emails. Where do you get 22 million from?

Well, by 2009 technicians had recovered 22 million missing emails from the servers in question, when the administration/RNC only admitted to 5 million deleted emails. As to what happened to the content of these emails? Probably wasn't important enough for the republican-run media to report on.

http://gizmodo.com/5426338/re-re-re-re-re-re-re-iraq-22-million-lost-bush-white-house-emails-recovered

I find your statement to be Pants on Fire, sir.

Do you know if any of those 22 million RECOVERED emails contained Classified and Top Secret information vital to national security? Because that's what we're really talking about, not some deflection you're trying to introduce.