Will Hillary's email problem be her undoing?

[Penumbra]

No, emails won't be the downfall. If she doesn't win, I think it will be from lack of enthusiasm from Democrats.

As much as I'd like to see a female president, I didn't support her in 2008 because she was slippery. She didn't answer specifics, and her responses seemed manufactured. She's very corporate, not progressive/liberal, and she voted in favor of the Iraq War.

Democrat victories depend on voter turnout. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, but Republicans have a more consistent voting rate. That's why they win mid-term elections while Democrats have a stronger shot at president-year elections. If Hillary doesn't win, it will either be because Bernie pulled a surprise victory in the primaries due to Democrat enthusiasm, or because Hillary made it all the way to the November election against Jeb or Trump or whoever, but lost due to lack of Democrat voter turnout, aka enthusiasm.

 

[ShivaFan]

63 classified emails, now growing to 305, why hasn't she been arrested for turning over a "professionally clean sweeped" server? Besides the C drive sweeped multiple times, and missing the backup drive entirely, all computer components that had cache chips on them, any such card from NIC to other components were replaced with new components of the same model but different OEM serial number. That alone should put her in prison for 5 years. But she doesn't understand, there are other ways to get to the truth. And it won't take 300+ classified emails to have her criminally charged even though it's going to be that or more. Now we find out today Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM, raising new security violations and risk that literally classified emails were treated on the same level as a toilet where people evacuated and god knows what else they did in the toilet room.

Now I am hearing not only Biden is going to jump into the race, and not just Al Gore, but now Jerry Brown the corrupt Governor and faulure here in California and Warren may as well.

Hillary is a loser and thinks she dosen't have to follow the same rules the rest of us do. Even I could probably jump in the race at this point. This is far worse than the "missing 18 and a half minutes" of the Nixon "Watergate tapes".

 

[Revoltingest]

63 classified emails, now growing to 305, why hasn't she been arrested for turning over a "professionally clean sweeped" server? Besides the C drive sweeped multiple times, and missing the backup drive entirely, all computer components that had cache chips on them, any such card from NIC to other components were replaced with new components of the same model but different OEM serial number. That alone should put her in prison for 5 years. But she doesn't understand, there are other ways to get to the truth. And it won't take 300+ classified emails to have her criminally charged even though it's going to be that or more. Now we find out today Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM, raising new security violations and risk that literally classified emails were treated on the same level as a toilet where people evacuated and god knows what else they did in the toilet room.

Now I am hearing not only Biden is going to jump into the race, and not just Al Gore, but now Jerry Brown the corrupt Governor and faulure here in California and Warren may as well.

Hillary is a loser and thinks she dosen't have to follow the same rules the rest of us do. Even I could probably jump in the race at this point. This is far worse than the "missing 18 and a half minutes" of the Nixon "Watergate tapes".

Arrest isn't for politicians except in rare cases.
They're generally immune from arrest & prosecution.
After all, they run the system.
Moreover, some distinctions between their jobs & crimes become blurred.
- Theft
- Murder
- Discrimination

 

[Underhill]

No, emails won't be the downfall. If she doesn't win, I think it will be from lack of enthusiasm from Democrats.

As much as I'd like to see a female president, I didn't support her in 2008 because she was slippery. She didn't answer specifics, and her responses seemed manufactured. She's very corporate, not progressive/liberal, and she voted in favor of the Iraq War.

Democrat victories depend on voter turnout. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans, but Republicans have a more consistent voting rate. That's why they win mid-term elections while Democrats have a stronger shot at president-year elections. If Hillary doesn't win, it will either be because Bernie pulled a surprise victory in the primaries due to Democrat enthusiasm, or because Hillary made it all the way to the November election against Jeb or Trump or whoever, but lost due to lack of Democrat voter turnout, aka enthusiasm.

I agree with you.

What blows my mind is the hatred she stirs up. I find her boring and uninspiring. Which makes me wonder why people hate her. She's done nothing of note in her political career.

Sure, she's slippery. They all are. But that doesn't explain why people seem to hate her. I mention her name among my republican coworkers and without fail, they sneer and act disgusted.

I have two theories. Both won't be popular. First, Republicans have had a target on her back for decades. She has been badmouthed and smeared since her husband was president. My second theory is that shes a woman. And much like Obama among those who are overtly racist, there is a distrust of a woman who has aspirations for power (the old adage, men who wants power are ambitious, women who want power are conniving). Probably a mix of both.

But I see nothing about her that is demonstrably worse than the rest of the field on either side of the aisle.

 

[esmith]

I agree with you.

What blows my mind is the hatred she stirs up. I find her boring and uninspiring. Which makes me wonder why people hate her. She's done nothing of note in her political career.

Sure, she's slippery. They all are. But that doesn't explain why people seem to hate her. I mention her name among my republican coworkers and without fail, they sneer and act disgusted.

I have two theories. Both won't be popular. First, Republicans have had a target on her back for decades. She has been badmouthed and smeared since her husband was president. My second theory is that shes a woman. And much like Obama among those who are overtly racist, there is a distrust of a woman who has aspirations for power (the old adage, men who wants power are ambitious, women who want power are conniving). Probably a mix of both.

But I see nothing about her that is demonstrably worse than the rest of the field on either side of the aisle.

I really don't think it is "hatred" it is more disgust with the Clinton's overall. Bill is well liked but many disagree with him on many issues. The Clinton's have weathered many "scandals"(for lack of a better word) over the years; Bill wasn't called "Teflon Bill" without reason. Both Clinton's have been associated with this nickname, but Hillary just doesn't have the demeanor that Bill has to weather the criticism being directed at her. The present issue is of her own making and she is not handling it well; the "oh woe is me, those nasty Republicans are the only ones that are going after me". Does she not realize that the DOJ and State Department are neutral (supposedly?) parties. Hillary exudes the personification that she is "entitled" to be the Democrats nomination for president, which rankles many Democrats and others. Your second theory really doesn't hold water, you do realize that Carly Fiorina is a woman don't you. She is not being attacked because she is a "woman" and if you look at her poll numbers she is doing a lot better than the majority vying for the nomination.
No Hilary just doesn't have what it takes to be President and it appears that the wheels are coming off the wagon.

 

[ShivaFan]

This arrogant nag told the American people that the private server system involed was, quote, "guarded by the secret service 24x7".

That means secret service agents were stationed in a bathroom in a Denver apartment, 24x7, now that we know of the "toilet server system" in this bathroom.

Everything Hillary says and said is literally "going down the drain". She will not be the nominee.

Since everyone will now be jumping in the race, I will be making my RF announcement to run as a write in candidate later this month (after I return from Australia, I have to fly out next week or so). I may make my announcement in Australia as a Presidential write in for the California Democratic primary. Under my avatar name, since illegal aliens do not have to reveal their identity then why should I. Just write in "ShivaFan".

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree with you.

What blows my mind is the hatred she stirs up. I find her boring and uninspiring. Which makes me wonder why people hate her. She's done nothing of note in her political career.

Sure, she's slippery. They all are. But that doesn't explain why people seem to hate her. I mention her name among my republican coworkers and without fail, they sneer and act disgusted.

I have two theories. Both won't be popular. First, Republicans have had a target on her back for decades. She has been badmouthed and smeared since her husband was president. My second theory is that shes a woman. And much like Obama among those who are overtly racist, there is a distrust of a woman who has aspirations for power (the old adage, men who wants power are ambitious, women who want power are conniving). Probably a mix of both.

But I see nothing about her that is demonstrably worse than the rest of the field on either side of the aisle.

I think we're in the midst of an inversion.
Now, men who want power are old school corrupt bullies.
While women who want power are seen as saviors from old school corrupt bullies.

Anyway, they all have targets on their backs.
Obama, Bill, Hillary all complain about racist/sexist/conservative conspiracies against them.
But the reality is that Republican presidents have endured a plethora of vicious attacks too.
They just don't label it as part of a "vast left wing conspiracy".

 

[Underhill]

I think we're in the midst of an inversion.
Now, men who want power are old school corrupt bullies.
While women who want power are seen as saviors from old school corrupt bullies.

Anyway, they all have targets on their backs.
Obama, Bill, Hillary all complain about racist/sexist/conservative conspiracies against them.
But the reality is that Republican presidents have endured a plethora of vicious attacks too.
They just don't label it as part of a "vast left wing conspiracy".

To some extent yes. But there is a difference. Bush was hated for starting a war on false pretenses. Agree or not if you like, but it's a legitimate complaint. The crap I see thrown at Obama and Clinton is just nonsensical for the most part. Bush Sr. and Reagan generally weren't treated that way by the left.

A lot of it is the result of the 24 hour news channels exacerbating everything. They became popular while Clinton was in office. Fox News built its reputation by going after the Clinton's. There has never been a left wing equivalent. Some have tried, but their viewership is minuscule next to Fox.

Both sides may play the character assassination game, but the right does it much better. It's one of the reasons I suspect they are terrified of Bernie. He is a singular character. They can go after him on his policies, but I don't see them gaining a foothold in the character assassination game.

 

[LuisDantas]

It was certainly her albatross to me. I would expect that from a Republican. What is she doing in the Dems?

 

[Revoltingest]

To some extent yes. But there is a difference. Bush was hated for starting a war on false pretenses. Agree or not if you like, but it's a legitimate complaint.

There are always legitimate complaints.
(I have'm for every president I can remember....going back to Nixon.)

The crap I see thrown at Obama and Clinton is just nonsensical for the most part. Bush Sr. and Reagan generally weren't treated that way by the left.

They were abused for such things too.
Bush Sr is most remembered for upchucking at a Japanese banquet.
Ronald ("Ray Guns") Reagan was intensely hated by the left, & his accomplishments utterly denied by them.
Clinton was rightly despised for suborning perjury, & many many other sins.
Obama has also given us reasons to despise him. For me, it's his continuing the Bush agenda in the ME (continuing both wars).

A lot of it is the result of the 24 hour news channels exacerbating everything. They became popular while Clinton was in office. Fox News built its reputation by going after the Clinton's. There has never been a left wing equivalent. Some have tried, but their viewership is minuscule next to Fox.

Of course there are leftish equivalents of Fox, eg, MSNBC, NPR

Both sides may play the character assassination game, but the right does it much better.

Nah.....it's how the Dems have kept the presidency for 8 years.

It's one of the reasons I suspect they are terrified of Bernie. He is a singular character. They can go after him on his policies, but I don't see them gaining a foothold in the character assassination game.

Scared of Bernie?
I haven't seen that.
They might even prefer running against him because he'll be easy to portray as a liberal radical.
And he won't have the advantage of a Hillary or Obama, ie, being able to call any criticism "sexist" or "racist".
I suppose he can claim "anti-semitic", but that doesn't seem his style.
(I like him, btw.)

 

[Underhill]

There are always legitimate complaints.
(I have'm for every president I can remember....going back to Nixon.)

They were abused for such things too.
Bush Sr is most remembered for upchucking at a Japanese banquet.
Ronald ("Ray Guns") Reagan was intensely hated by the left, & his accomplishments utterly denied by them.
Clinton was rightly despised for suborning perjury, & many many other sins.
Obama has also given us reasons to despise him. For me, it's his continuing the Bush agenda in the ME (continuing both wars).

Of course there are leftish equivalents of Fox, eg, MSNBC, NPR

Nah.....it's how the Dems have kept the presidency for 8 years.

Scared of Bernie?
I haven't seen that.
They might even prefer running against him because he'll be easy to portray as a liberal radical.
And he won't have the advantage of a Hillary or Obama, ie, being able to call any criticism "sexist" or "racist".
I suppose he can claim "anti-semitic", but that doesn't seem his style.
(I like him, btw.)

Maybe it's where I live but I do see differences. Reagan and even Bush Jr were able to get things done working with congress later in their terms in office. Congress publicly stated halfway through Obama's second year that they refused to work with him on anything. Nobody likes their opposition. But reality doesn't match perception.

Reagan was almost revered when he left office. Clinton was hated. But from a policy perspective (even fiscally), Clinton was vastly better. And even when talking about investigations, Clinton lied about a BJ but Reagan and his administration swept deals with Iran under the table. But who is remembered as scandalous? Clinton. While Reagan is talked about in hushed tones as a fatherly figure of the Grand Ole Party.

Comparing Bush and Obama is much the same. I agree that I am not particularly happy with Obama. But the difference is still pretty vast. Obama may have continued more Bush policies than I like, but he has also had more nonsensical scandals than any president I can remember. And dealing with the fallout of unnecessary wars is not in the same class as starting them.

And look at the elections and the smear campaigns. Kerry was destroyed by lies about his time in the military. Bush and his iffy record in the military was barely a blip.

The scary part is that both parties don't seem to be backing off from these tactics. If anything just the opposite. At this rate in another 20 years the elections will be more like an WWF matchup than a decision rooted in what is believed to be best for the country.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe it's where I live but I do see differences. Reagan and even Bush Jr were able to get things done working with congress later in their terms in office. Congress publicly stated halfway through Obama's second year that they refused to work with him on anything. Nobody likes their opposition. But reality doesn't match perception.

Reagan was almost revered when he left office. Clinton was hated. But from a policy perspective (even fiscally), Clinton was vastly better.

I see it as more balanced.
Certainly, good times coincide with both presidents.
But correlation is not causation, so I look at the actual policies they implemented.
Reagan gets credit for great improvements in the tax code, & for achieving peace with the Soviets.
Both paid quick & long term economic dividends.
He was the primary impetus behind both.

Clinton gets credit for slowing the growth of fed regulation (actually reduced in one year, as measured by the size of the CFR).
But the economic good times were primarily an inherited rise (beginning just prior to GHWB leaving office).
I do give Clinton credit for not starting any wars, & for his working with Gingrich & crew.
Not starting or continuing expensive & feckless wars is a great thing for the economy too.
(It drives my voting.)

And even when talking about investigations, Clinton lied about a BJ but Reagan and his administration swept deals with Iran under the table. But who is remembered as scandalous? Clinton. While Reagan is talked about in hushed tones as a fatherly figure of the Grand Ole Party.

Clinton's lying to a grand jury & suborning perjury are not easily dismissed as merely boinking an intern.
These are very real & significant crimes.
Why do they matter?
Little people would go to jail for them.
But even worse, it makes a prez vulnerable to extortion.

Comparing Bush and Obama is much the same. I agree that I am not particularly happy with Obama. But the difference is still pretty vast. Obama may have continued more Bush policies than I like, but he has also had more nonsensical scandals than any president I can remember. And dealing with the fallout of unnecessary wars is not in the same class as starting them.

One person's nonsensical is another's significant.

And look at the elections and the smear campaigns. Kerry was destroyed by lies about his time in the military. Bush and his iffy record in the military was barely a blip.

I've seen that smearing is a bi-partisan tactic.
Perhaps it's easier for me to see because I don't like either party in the Big Two.
I see failings & merit in both.

You know the real difference between them?
Democrats pretend to like black folk & the poor.
Republicans pretend to like small government.

The scary part is that both parties don't seem to be backing off from these tactics. If anything just the opposite. At this rate in another 20 years the elections will be more like an WWF matchup than a decision rooted in what is believed to be best for the country.

Elections have always been bruising affairs.
Remember that Lincoln was the "original gorilla".

 

[Underhill]

Clinton's lying to a grand jury & suborning perjury are not easily dismissed as merely boinking an intern.
These are very real & significant crimes.
Why do they matter?
Little people would go to jail for them.
But even worse, it makes a prez vulnerable to extortion.

Sure, I've heard that. Except that nobody else would be asked those kinds of questions by a grand jury. It was an absurd witch hunt. So I may not dismiss it. But it's not nearly as serious as selling weapons to the Iranians who had held our own people hostage just a few years earlier. How much time would treason buy the little people?

One person's nonsensical is another's significant.

Yes, a reasonable person sees these as nonsensical. A rabid partisan sees them as significant. One minute he's following a nutty baptist preacher, the next he's a muslim. Obama's sending in the army to set up camps for the dissidents. Obama (or Clinton depending on the nut) is hiding something about Benghazi. Nobody knows what exactly. But it's so obvious something is there. *rolls eyes It's all garbage.

I've seen that smearing is a bi-partisan tactic.
Perhaps it's easier for me to see because I don't like either party in the Big Two.
I see failings & merit in both.

You know the real difference between them?
Democrats pretend to like black folk & the poor.
Republicans pretend to like small government.

Elections have always been bruising affairs.
Remember that Lincoln was the "original gorilla".

I'm no democratic fan boy. I have serious problems with both parties. I think the difference between the parties is where they spend too much money.

Of course, politicians have always attempted to smear the opposition. The difference is that these days, instead of nailing a poster to a tree, people are having their fears or positions reinforced and magnified 24 hours a day on the TV and web. I see more hatred than I used to. More fear. It's a dangerous game they are playing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, I've heard that. Except that nobody else would be asked those kinds of questions by a grand jury. It was an absurd witch hunt. So I may not dismiss it. But it's not nearly as serious as selling weapons to the Iranians who had held our own people hostage just a few years earlier. How much time would treason buy the little people?

Others weren't asked because others didn't get caught doing that.
(Note that Dem presidents weren't questioned about a Watergate break-in either.)
If it were only a witch hunt, Bill could've simply told the truth, thereby avoiding his criminal behavior.
He personally made mere misbehavior into multiple felonies.
His apologists will blame others for it, but ultimately he is the one responsible.

As for Reagan selling weapons to the Iranians, that pales in comparison to his & Bush's aiding Iraq with WMDs & other aid in Iraq's attack on Iran.
Tis odd that I'm the one praising Reagan, but the only one criticizing him for what I consider his most heinous act.

Yes, a reasonable person sees these as nonsensical. A rabid partisan sees them as significant. One minute he's following a nutty baptist preacher, the next he's a muslim. Obama's sending in the army to set up camps for the dissidents. Obama (or Clinton depending on the nut) is hiding something about Benghazi. Nobody knows what exactly. But it's so obvious something is there. *rolls eyes It's all garbage.

We'll have to agree to disagree about what is significant.

I'm no democratic fan boy. I have serious problems with both parties. I think the difference between the parties is where they spend too much money.
Of course, politicians have always attempted to smear the opposition. The difference is that these days, instead of nailing a poster to a tree, people are having their fears or positions reinforced and magnified 24 hours a day on the TV and web. I see more hatred than I used to. More fear. It's a dangerous game they are playing.

Do you identify with one party more than the other?
My blind spot is the Libertarian Party....but it's easy to live with the shortcomings of our politicians because there are so few who actually win office.

 

[Underhill]

Do you identify with one party more than the other?
My blind spot is the Libertarian Party....but it's easy to live with the shortcomings of our politicians because there are so few who actually win office.

Not really. I'm registered as a republican but that's mostly for local elections. Nationally I think both parties have some serious problems.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news......
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-g-o-p-news-media-for-wifes-email-woes/?_r=0
The Clintons are never responsible for what happens to them.
Unlike all other politicians, they're subject to partisan attack.
It's always the vast right wing conspiracy.

 

[Underhill]

In the news......
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-g-o-p-news-media-for-wifes-email-woes/?_r=0
The Clintons are never responsible for what happens to them.
Unlike all other politicians, they're subject to partisan attack.
It's always the vast right wing conspiracy.

It's not a conspiracy. This nonsensical attack is right out there in the open.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784

 

[Revoltingest]

Newsweek thinks it's a fake scandal?
Well, now I'm convinced!
For every source defending Hillary, there'll be equally fervent sources prosecuting her.
This is politics as usual for both parties.
Hillary isn't special....she's just experiencing the norm, ie, any faux pas is fodder for opponents.
I've seen even dumber attacks on Pubs, but Dems never complain about that.

Is she culplable for a crime?
I don't know or really care enuf to investigate.
Btw, I voted <no>...it won't be her undoing.

 

[Underhill]

Newsweek thinks it's a fake scandal?
Well, now I'm convinced!
For every source defending Hillary, there'll be equally fervent sources prosecuting her.
This is politics as usual for both parties.
Hillary isn't special....she's just experiencing the norm, ie, any faux pas is fodder for opponents.
I've seen even dumber attacks on Pubs, but Dems never complain about that.

Is she culplable for a crime?
I don't know or really care enuf to investigate.
Btw, I voted <no>...it won't be her undoing.

Say what you like about Newsweek, but the author lays out the case about as clearly as they come. And he isn't the only one saying so.

The original story was about whether she could send emails from a private server, everyone has excepted now that she was legally allowed to. Now they are simply chasing their tail, looking for anything they can pin on her.

 

[Revoltingest]

Say what you like about Newsweek, but the author lays out the case about as clearly as they come. And he isn't the only one saying so.

Everyone lays out a clear case for what they advocate.
They cull comporting facts & factoids, & leave out the rest.
Here's a more balanced view....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

The original story was about whether she could send emails from a private server, everyone has excepted now that she was legally allowed to. Now they are simply chasing their tail, looking for anything they can pin on her.

Why is it that Democrats think that they're exceptional, ie, that it's wrong when the opposition plays politics against them?