Will Hillary's email problem be her undoing?

[Underhill]

You don't exculpate Democrats by pointing to Republicans.

I'm not trying to. You are trying to make the claim that they are treated the same. I am pointing out that no other politician in the country has endured the amount of scrutiny by federal investigators that the Clinton's have. Not even close.

And even though, through the entire thread, they haven't been found guilty of anything (except lying about an unrelated matter than never should have been brought up in court) they have been labeled falsely. I view it almost like a rape victim. The Clinton's have been targeted for nearly 3 decades of groundless investigation after investigation, but the public sees them as the guilty ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

So legal actions he is taking today is "material" to a claim made 7 years earlier? It would have no impact on the case whatsoever. Thus, by definition is not material.

This is why, even Ken Starr, talked about him "lying under oath" and never officially called it "perjury".

"On September 9, Independent Counsel Starr submitted a detailed report to the Congress in which he contended that there was "substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment" by lying under oath in the Jones litigation and obstructing justice by urging Ms. Lewinsky "... to to file an affidavit that the President knew would be false". On September 11, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 525 by a vote of 363 to 63 authorizing a review by the Committee on the Judiciary of the report of the Independent Counsel to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced and also approved the public release of the Starr report. On September 21, the Judiciary Committee released nearly 3,200 pages of material from the grand jury proceedings and the Starr investigation, including transcripts of the tesimony of President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky."

Republicans in congress went on to call it perjury in the hearings but it does not fit the legal definition.

So far as I am concerned I believe what they did was right. What Clinton did was wrong and he was publicly humiliated for that. But I see no evidence that it was perjury.

It's telling that you make it about illicit but legal acts (eg, the various trysts), but haven't even yet acknowledged his suborning perjury (his secretary).
I'm tempted to say...
"No Democratic sympathizer will ever admit that any Clinton ever committed any crimes."
But that would be too snarky.
Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not trying to. You are trying to make the claim that they are treated the same.

This might be an overstatement of my claims, if "same" means identically.
Both parties play the same game, are subject to the same tactics, & will see the same results in the sense that they'll be attacked by all means available.

I am pointing out that no other politician in the country has endured the amount of scrutiny by federal investigators that the Clinton's have. Not even close.

This isn't as significant as you might think.
It's a mathematical near certainty that someone will have endured the most scrutiny.
This doesn't mean that it was necessarily a political conspiracy.
Clinton just managed to be such a brazen cad, get caught at it, & subsequently handle it so poorly that he attracted such attention.

And even though, through the entire thread, they haven't been found guilty of anything (except lying about an unrelated matter than never should have been brought up in court) they have been labeled falsely. I view it almost like a rape victim. The Clinton's have been targeted for nearly 3 decades of groundless investigation after investigation, but the public sees them as the guilty ones.

We must agree to disagree.
Where you see innocence & excuses, I see misdeeds & crimes.

 

[Underhill]

This might be an overstatement of my claims, if "same" means identically.
Both parties play the same game, are subject to the same tactics, & will see the same results in the sense that they'll be attacked by all means available.

This isn't as significant as you might think.
It's a mathematical near certainty that someone will have endured the most scrutiny.
This doesn't mean that it was necessarily a political conspiracy.
Clinton just managed to be such a brazen cad, get caught at it, & subsequently handle it so poorly that he attracted such attention.

Except that he hasn't been caught at anything other than completely legal behavior and then lying about it. Otherwise, spot on.

We must agree to disagree.
Where you see innocence & excuses, I see misdeeds & crimes.

Nobody on the planet is innocent. I'm not even a fan of Hillary. But I see plenty of evidence to support Bill's claim that they have been railroaded.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that he hasn't been caught at anything other than completely legal behavior and then lying about it. Otherwise, spot on.

It points out the utter stupidity of turning merely abominable behavior into criminal behavior.
That's not the fault of any conspiracy or cabal, since the response is normal & to be expected.
Now, to beat a dead horse, consider....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones#Aftermath
We see that Clinton's perjury was material, & that he was sanctioned for it.

Nobody on the planet is innocent. I'm not even a fan of Hillary. But I see plenty of evidence to support Bill's claim that they have been railroaded.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen....& don't boink all the maids....& then don't lie in court when they sue you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sanders? LOL. Whatta ya been smokin', bro?

If email-gate and Benghazi are indeed enough fodder to undo Hillary, then I am pretty sure the DNC POTUS candidate nod will go to Joe Biden, should he decide to run, and I think he will. He's just been sitting back and playing it cool for awhile, waiting for Hillary's numbers to tank. Mark this: Biden announces he is running in about, oh, four to six weeks.

Doubtful. Biden is just like....unpopular. Currently Sanders is rising in the polls like crazy. Biden has a slight rise but I don't even know if he is beating Sanders in any state currently. Hillary is falling like a rock though.

Currently Sanders is beating Biden by 5 points. The only time Biden went up was as Hillary went down. Currently he is on a downward trend while Sanders has maintained an upward streak with a clear advantage over Biden. So I don't know what your smoking but that is what all the polls are telling us.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281554-clinton-email-headache-is-about-to-get-worse

But I still predict it won't hurt The Hildabeast.
She's simply too high profile to be prosecuted for crimes which are technical in nature.

 

[Acim]

Reading the August 2015 posts are funny. Claims that it will be a non issue and no one will be talking about it in 2016.

As far as the Trump campaign is concerned, we've only barely started talking about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the news.....
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281554-clinton-email-headache-is-about-to-get-worse

But I still predict it won't hurt The Hildabeast.
She's simply too high profile to be prosecuted for crimes which are technical in nature.

Concerning the email I really don't think she broke any hard laws over it because Colin Powell said he wasn't aware of any when he had the position, and even Condoleza Rice did the same exact thing (albeit not as often because email wasn't heavily relied on yet). In this case of "innocent until proven guilty," we really need to know what the law exactly says, because it appears likely the law, as written, is inadequate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Concerning the email I really don't think she broke any hard laws over it because Colin Powell said he wasn't aware of any when he had the position, and even Condoleza Rice did the same exact thing (albeit not as often because email wasn't heavily relied on yet). In this case of "innocent until proven guilty," we really need to know what the law exactly says, because it appears likely the law, as written, is inadequate.

Prior bad acts don't justify subsequent ones.
If the others broke the law, then that should've been addressed at the time.

This is a recurring problem with the Big Two, ie, if one side does wrong, they justify it by pointing to a wrong by the other side.
There should be higher standards....achieved by more oversight & prosecutions at all levels.
Let heads roll!
Let important heads roll!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Prior bad acts don't justify subsequent ones.
If the others broke the law, then that should've been addressed at the time.

This is a recurring problem with the Big Two, ie, if one side does wrong, they justify it by pointing to a wrong by the other side.
There should be higher standards....achieved by more oversight & prosecutions at all levels.
Let heads roll!
Let important heads roll!

I'm saying we need to know exactly what the law says, because it may not be a broken law but an undersight in the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm saying we need to know exactly what the law says, because it may not be a broken law but an undersight in the law.

I don't need to know.
Things will unfold as they will without any influence from me.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't need to know.
Things will unfold as they will without any influence from me.

very zen.

 

[Revoltingest]

very zen.

Zen is a lot like lazy resignation to inexorable unfolding reality.
The latter is for us less sophisticated types.

 

[Milton Platt]

In light of the ongoing revelation about what was found and what could be found on her serve will this be Hillary's albatross ? What say you.

It seems to me to be entirely unfair to single her out and not investigate all other government employees for the same thing. I think other Secretaries of State and equivalently high ranking government officials have all crossed that line at one time or the other. If she wee not running for office, you would hardly hear a whimper about it.

 

[Acim]

IMO, putting governmental (classified) messages on a private server strikes me as enough reason to single a person out for investigation. If Hillary can beat this, I think Snowden ought to stand a good chance at becoming POTUS.

If she were running for office as a Republican, she would've been forced out of the race about 1 month after the first story on this broke. Being a Democrat means, ya know, it's not really that big of a deal. I mean really, what difference does it make?

 

[Acim]

As someone who does hope the email scandal will be her undoing, I do like how this CBS article (written May 28, 2016) conveys certain, rather well known data points.

From that article:

CLINTON: "What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that." - AP interview, September.

THE REPORT: "No evidence" that Clinton asked for or received approval to conduct official government business on a personal email account run through a private server in her New York home. According to top State Department officials interviewed for the investigation, the departments that oversee security "did not - and would not - approve" her use of a personal account because of security concerns.

Clinton has changed her account since the report came out. On Thursday, she told CNN "I thought it was allowed. I knew past secretaries of state used personal email."

Colin Powell was the only secretary of state who used personal email for work, but not to the extent she did, and he did not use a private server.

I crack up with "changed her account" and "I thought it was allowed" stuff.

Plus the whole 'Colin Powell did the same thing I did' is hilarious when you realize he and likely none of the past ones dared put it on their own private server. You have to be a little incompetent to think that would be a great thing for likes of Secretary of State and dealing with top secret information.

Incompetent is the nicest way I can put that.

 

[esmith]

As we can see from the following article those with political "clout" do not have to answer for their screw-ups whereas those that don't are punished. Note the close similarities to the Hillary issue
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

 

[tytlyf]

As we can see from the following article those with political "clout" do not have to answer for their screw-ups whereas those that don't are punished. Note the close similarities to the Hillary issue
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

How'd that work in the Bush/Cheney case?

 

[Revoltingest]

As we can see from the following article those with political "clout" do not have to answer for their screw-ups whereas those that don't are punished. Note the close similarities to the Hillary issue
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646

I have it all figured out.
This crude flow chart shows how it works....

1) Something with political ramifications happened.
Good ---> Select option D.
Bad ---> Go to step 2.
Insignificant ---> Select option D.

2) Is Hillary responsible for the bad thing which happened?
Yes ---> Go to step 3.
No ---> Select option A.

3) Is it plausibly deniable?
Yes ---> Select option B.
No ---> Select option C.

Options.....
A) Blame Bush, Trump or Reagan
B) Call it a "manufactured controversy".
C) Say that Republicans do it too, so she shouldn't be singled out.
D) Give Hillary credit for her well deserved success.