Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[russ_watters]

We do need a link I had found several the other day but didn't want to rub salt in the wounds.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-sanity-mental-health-000000384.html

To paraphrase what people are saying in the link: "I don't like him, so he must be crazy."

I especially enjoyed the one that said "he lies like other people breathe" in light of Hillary's "admission" yesterday that she "may have short circuited" the truth regarding the investigation into her email practices. "Short circuited"? Yeah: we know she lied. She knows she lied. She knows we know she lied. All politicians are the same here. They tell self-serving lies as easily as breathing, with the only limitation being what they think they can get away with. The only difference between Trump and any other politician is that he's more spur-of-the-moment than most. But in terms of who's lies and self-servingness are worse, there really is no contest: Trump's lies about stuff like whether he met Putin are basically meaningless whereas Hillary's lie was about something she did that risked national security over her self-servingness. Hillary's is much, much worse. And look, she got away with it! (Unless it costs her the election...)

 

[mheslep]

Some call that "Street Smarts" .

..............
Edit by Mod: Aww, very nice article about Hillary, but I am afraid 1993 is pushing the envelope.

1993, when she was in the White House, is dated and somehow irrelevant?

 

[Dr Transport]

Some call that "Street Smarts" .

..............
Edit by Mod: Aww, very nice article about Hillary, but I am afraid 1993 is pushing the envelope.

I worked for a guy who was very much like him, lived in a parallel universe where he was the only one that was right, sounds like a narcissist.

 

[mheslep]

...

I especially enjoyed the one that said "he lies like other people breathe" in light of Hillary's "admission" yesterday that she "may have short circuited" the truth regarding the investigation into her email practices. "Short circuited"? Yeah: we know she lied. She knows she lied. She knows we know she lied. All politicians are the same here. They tell self-serving lies as easily as breathing, with the only limitation being what they think they can get away with. The only difference between Trump and any other politician is that he's more spur-of-the-moment than most. But in terms of who's lies and self-servingness are worse, there really is no contest: Trump's lies about stuff like whether he met Putin are basically meaningless whereas Hillary's lie was about something she did that risked national security over her self-servingness. Hillary's is much, much worse. And look, she got away with it! (Unless it costs her the election...)

The pants on fire quote was

"Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."

Reminiscent of Bill digging in deeper in the face of glaringly obvious evidence, i.e., "I did not have relations ..."

 

[Dr Transport]

Reminiscent of Bill digging in deeper in the face of glaringly obvious evidence, i.e., "I did not have ..."

Are we going to get into the definition of "is" again...

 

[Astronuc]

People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same,

I can appreciate the frustration that folks have with the system, but Trump is part of a different system, and that doesn't include folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum or many of his supporters. He's stiffed contractors on various of his projects, his bankruptcies shorted creditors and contractors, his Trump U was essentially a scam, . . . . He is definitely not for the little guy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...trump-not-paying-his-bills-reports-claim.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-business-plan-left-a-trail-of-unpaid-bills-1465504454

Since he hired John Paulson (The Big Short), I would imagine that he would 'short' the country.

 

[Evo]

1993, when she was in the White House, is dated and somehow irrelevant?

To the rules for this forum.

 

[mheslep]

Are we going to get into the definition of "is" again...

This time, I don't see more carefully parsed word play from Hillary Clinton on the Sunday interview, but either some kind of Machiavellian 'the base will believe me no matter what' denial play, or a Nixonian, 'I said it therefore it's the truth' delusion.

 

[Evo]

I'd rather have an intelligent politician that is sane, with the normal things a politician might do, very little I approve of, I assume that they all have skeletons in their closet" than a person that seems to be rowing with one oar in the water, that we know has a long history of dishonesty , that even now is making up crazy stories ($400 million to Iran, want want me to post that one?)

Trump first discussed the video on Wednesday.

"I'll never forget the scene this morning. And remember this: Iran - I don't think you've heard this anywhere but here - Iran provided all of that footage, the tape of taking that money off that airplane," Trump told supporters at a rally in Daytona Beach, Florida.

"Now, here's the amazing thing: Over there, where that plane landed, top secret. They don't have a lot of paparazzi. You know, the paparazzi doesn't do so well over there, right? And they have a perfect tape. Done by obviously a government camera. And the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane, right? That means that, in order to embarrass us further, Iran sent us the tapes, right? It's a military tape. It's a tape that was a perfect angle, nice and steady, nobody getting nervous because they're going to be shot because they're shooting a picture of money pouring off a plane."

He added, "And Iran released that tape, which is of quality like these guys have. Iran released that tape so that we will be embarrassed."

But several senior U.S. officials involved in the Iran negotiations have told The Associated Press they weren't aware of any such footage. Instead, the campaign said in an email late Wednesday that Trump was simply referring to footage "shown on all major broadcasts this morning."

A Trump spokeswoman told the Washington Post, the video Trump saw was grainy nighttime footage of people getting off a small plane, holding bags. "Geneva, January 17," the footage is clearly labeled. Trump apparently assumed that this footage depicted the cash transfer — and concocted the story on his own about how the footage was acquired and the motivations for its release.

Perhaps even more unbelievably, Trump then repeated his original claim Thursday at a rally in Portland, Maine — even after his campaign said that Trump had been mistaken.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-rare-admission-notes-mistake-iran-video-142429794--election.html

And his claim that the NFL sent him a letter about the debates, the NFL says they sent no letter.

And the claim that the Koch brothers invited him to a meeting, the Koch Brothers said they asked him to no meeting.

And his claims of meeting and being friends with Putin... and if these haven't already been posted (I believe they are in previous posts, I have them all).

 

[Astronuc]

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told Chaffetz during one of his opening exchanges, though the director declined to state whether Clinton lied publicly regarding her emails during her testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last October.

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

Clinton's statements about the emails are certainly troubling. As Secretary of State, it was part of her job requirements to know and protect classified information. She may not have intentionally sent classified information to those who should not receive it, but the information was maintained on an unsecure server, so in that sense it was a breach of protocol.

I would like to see someone like Colin Powell for President.

 

[Evo]

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

Clinton's statements about the emails are certainly troubling. As Secretary of State, it was part of her job requirements to know and protect classified information. She may not have intentionally sent classified information to those who should not receive it, but the information was maintained on an unsecure server, so in that sense it was a breach of protocol.

I would like to see someone like Colin Powell for President.

Powell used personal e-mail for work.

Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.

“He was not aware of any restrictions nor does he recall being made aware of any over the four years he served at State,” the statement says. “He sent emails to his staff generally via their State Department email addresses. These emails should be on the State Department computers. He might have occasionally used personal email addresses, as he did when emailing to family and friends.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

 

[jim hardy]

I don't think there is any possible question but what that is the case. Our gridlocked congress is one thing and the way Wall Street bankers brought down the financial system and then not only did not go to jail, most of them walked away with large bonuses makes us look like a 3rd world country. People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same,

Amen.

I would like to see someone like Colin Powell for President.

You know, I've long thought the same thing. A decent well spoken man.
I'd rather hoped Trump would pick him for VP.
Yes, he had his "Patna" moment on Iraq; most of us have one somewhere along our way.

 

[Evo]

Colin Powell was a good guy. I'd vote for him for President.

 

[Evo]

People so are massively fed up with "the system" that they would rather have a lunatic like Trump than more of the same,

And that is SO dangerous and foolhardy, you just can't hand over the leadership of a country to someone that seems to be mentally ill. This is not a joke. This is very serious. I don't think people realize just how serious it is. Thankfully a lot of people do now seem to be getting it.

 

[phinds]

And that is SO dangerous and foolhardy, you just can't hand over the leadership of a country to someone that seems to be mentally ill. This is not a joke. This is very serious. I don't think people realize just how serious it is. Thankfully a lot of people do now seem to be getting it.

It just seems like in America today critical thinking is sadly missing in a huge swath of the population. Perhaps it was ever thus, but the results are much more in evidence and dramatic this time around.

 

[Astronuc]

Colin Powell was a good guy. I'd vote for him for President.

Unfortunately, he is 79, so I don't think he's up to it. He has some good experience.

Powell used personal e-mail for work.

Hopefully, it wasn't classified material. It might have been social type stuff, or non-official stuff.

 

[Bystander]

Perhaps it was ever thus,

... 'twas.

more in evidence and dramatic

? Nerp.

 

[Astronuc]

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/12/48527...inton-so-why-arent-third-parties-doing-better

Americans Aren’t Excited About Their Presidential Choices - this year, and apparently in 1992

Only 43 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaners and 40 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners are “very” or “fairly satisfied” with this year’s presidential candidates. That’s low, but not unprecedented; in 1992, voters were slightly more displeased.

Unfortunately for George H. W. Bush, the economy had started to improve in the third quarter of 1992, but it wasn't apparent until the middle of the 4th quarter, after the election. Clinton was the beneficiary of Bush's policies on increasing taxes and reducing deficits.Some Bernie Sanders Supporters Finding A New Home Within The Green Party
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/48896...ers-finding-a-new-home-within-the-green-party

And for others, there is the Libertarian Party

 

[Evo]

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/12/48527...inton-so-why-arent-third-parties-doing-better

well, they aren't people I'd vote for. Hillary is better than any 3rd party for me, and WAY better than Trump.

 

[NTL2009]

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

...

But in the testimony to Congress later, Comey was asked specifically if HRC lied to the public. And he acknowledged that she did.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-comey-testifies-before-congress/chaffetz-to-comey/

Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, read Mrs. Clinton’s public statements about her email account to Mr. Comey and repeatedly asked: is that true?...

Mr. Comey repeatedly said that Mrs. Clinton’s statements were not true.

“Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified,” Mr. Gowdy said.
Mr. Comey said that description was “not true.”

Mr. Gowdy noted that Mrs. Clinton said there was no classified material on her servers.
“There was classified email,” Mr. Comey said.

Mr. Gowdy said that Mrs. Clinton claimed that she turned over all work-related emails.
“We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned,” Mr. Comey said.

So when HRC said she "may have short circuited" the truth regarding the investigation into her email practices." She was then lying about her lying!

What I find striking, is how she lies about things she can be so easily outed on. This was high profile lying, and recent. If we are talking about personality disorders, isn't this the sign of one? She just seems to think she can get away with any old lie. Like the "under sniper fire" 'incident'. Like Bill's "I didn't inhale". No one believed that, but no one could disprove it either. So I guess that at least makes some twisted sense for a lie.

Yes, the choices are bleak, but I can't vote for someone with these sort of pathetic, patronizing lies, and that has been "extremely careless" with classified information, and acting such that Comey said that "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation". So her actions in handling classified material were "unreasonable". Pretty damning.

I'd like to know why the FBI allowed HRC to sort the emails? When does someone under investigation get to pick and choose which evidence is turned over? Doesn't the FBI usually come in and grab everything, computers, disk drives, files? And to find classified info among the deleted emails - isn't that cause for charging her with obstruction of justice?

And why didn't the FBI question the statements she made publicly? If they did, she would be guilty of lying to the FBI.

I can only guess that those gaps were to give her the wiggle room to avoid prosecution. I have no other explanation. Sounds 'rigged ' to me.

-NTL2009

 

[Astronuc]

And why didn't the FBI question the statements she made publicly? If they did, she would be guilty of lying to the FBI.

Her public statements weren't part of the investigation. It is not illegal to make false statements to the public. It is illegal to lie to the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. According to Comey, she was truthful to the FBI, so that does not clear her in front of Congress or in the public domain.

I'd like to know why the FBI allowed HRC to sort the emails? When does someone under investigation get to pick and choose which evidence is turned over? Doesn't the FBI usually come in and grab everything, computers, disk drives, files? And to find classified info among the deleted emails - isn't that cause for charging her with obstruction of justice?

I'm not sure that is the case. I believe they had the hard-drives from the servers, and they retrieved and reviewed the materials themselves. Clinton did sent email to the Department of State.

Here is the FBI statement about their investigation.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Comey said that "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation".

I certainly agree with Comey.

From the FBI statement, the "investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way," I've have to wonder about the grossly negligent way. Was she just negligent, as opposed to grossly negligent.

Regarding use of servers and mobile devices:

Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

and there's more in the statement.

 

[russ_watters]

Powell used personal e-mail for work.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

Again: that very limited statement does not address what it is that Hillary did that was so bad:
1. Hillary used a personal SERVER.
2. Hillary sent/received classified info on it.

Powell did neither of those things as far as we know. That isn't the first time you've tried to falsely equate what they did and you really should stop: they are not comparable.

 

[Evo]

Again: that very limited statement does not address what it is that Hillary did that was so bad:
1. Hillary used a personal SERVER.
2. Hillary sent/received classified info on it.

Powell did neither of those things as far as we know. That isn't the first time you've tried to falsely equate what they did and you really should stop: they are not comparable.

I think using public e-mail can be less safe than using a private encrypted server. I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree. Don't forget that I used to set up e-mail servers for ISP's for a living so I know what I'm talking about. Some were safe some were in some guy's basement.

 

[russ_watters]

I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree.

You disagree with the Inspector General!

...and forgot to mention #2...

 

[Evo]

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?

We don't know what Powell sent, aren't those emails missing now?

And I promise not to bring up Powell's forward thinking use of e-mail, when many people he worked with wouldn't use it, you as usual are right, it can seem like an unfair comparison, BUT I KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

 

[DiracPool]

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered. Plus, what damage to the USA has come out of any of her hacked emails, if there were any?

I think all this hype around her self-discipline hides the larger question of why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information. If this is an "honor system" type of thing then that is the problem, not Hillary Clinton. Some oversight or monitoring agency should have been in place to tell her that her email setup was not up to national security standards very soon after she started using a personal server.

If I were part of her campaign team I would get out in front of this instead of always playing on the defensive and make a statement that, under her presidency, this is all going to change and that, under the Clinton administration, there will be strict monitoring of how classified email is handled and exchanged. This seems pretty straightforward.

 

[russ_watters]

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered.

It certainly was not laziness: setting up a personal email server takes a lot of effort. Many pundits surmised (and I think many on PF agrees) that she did it for control: to avoid transparency.

Plus, what damage to the USA has come out of any of her hacked emails, if there were any?

I guess we don't really know if anyone ever successfully hacked it, nor would we be likely to find out. What "concerns" me isn't necessarily speculation about damage, it is the recklessness and spectacular selfishness when choosing personal protection from oversight over national security. That isn't the sort person I want as President.

I think all this hype around her self-discipline hides the larger question of why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information. If this is an "honor system" type of thing then that is the problem, not Hillary Clinton. Some oversight or monitoring agency should have been in place to tell her that her email setup was not up to national security standards very soon after she started using a personal server.

My understanding is that there was: that people pointed it out repeatedly to her or her staff. The problem isn't a lack of oversight, it is a lack of teeth when dealing with a person who is above the law.

 

[DiracPool]

It certainly was not laziness: setting up a personal email server takes a lot of effort. Many pundits surmised (and I think many on PF agrees) that she did it for control: to avoid transparency.

Avoid transparency for what? For some nefarious purpose or just to say she could? As in she could get away with it simply because she's Hillary Clinton and there's no other reason other than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Back to that link:

Leave aside for the moment Trump’s policies, which in my opinion range from the unconstitutional to the un-American to the potentially catastrophic. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that Trump’s grasp on reality appears to be tenuous at best.”

We could replace Trump's name with anyone we don't like there, right? I'm reminded again of Obama's thoughtless (detail-less) promise to close the 'Gitmo detention facility in his first 100 days of office. His supporters - even many on PF who should have known better - thoughtlessly cheered it. But it just wasn't possible. So was he:
1. Crazy (out of touch with reality)?
2. Lying? (The typical campaign lie/promise most make that they have no intention of keeping).
3. Just hopelessly naive?

What is worse: a thoughless lie or a well planned-out lie?

 

[russ_watters]

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?

That isn't what I or he said: you are moving the goalposts.

We don't know what Powell sent, aren't those emails missing now?

Source? I don't think I've heard that accusation before.

 

[Evo]

That isn't what I or he said: you are moving the goalposts.

Sorry, then I didn't understand.

Source? I don't think I've heard that accusation before.

It wasn't an accusation, just what he said,

Powell says he doesn't have any of his State emails

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he doesn’t have any emails to turn over to the State Department.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department. Questions about his email use arose last week when it was disclosed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account during her tenure.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. “

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-email-state-department-115870#ixzz4Gch9wpFf

The last I read they hadn't been found but it wasn't a priority and the e-mails are thought to have been deleted some time ago for various reasons. But no one seems to be bothered by it. Go figure.

 

[Astronuc]

why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information.

There is a system for handling CI. It's more or less done on an agency basis, but there are independent investigative agencies that provide support. It's covered under various Acts and Executive Orders (OEs).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-08-07/pdf/95-19654.pdf

This could be a problem: "Agency heads shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective program to ensure that access to classified information by each employee is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security." In the case of Clinton, she apparently didn't apply it to herself.

Sec. 7.1. Classified Information Procedures Act. Nothing in this order is intended to alter the procedures established under the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 1).

https://www.odni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD_704.pdf

ICD-704 mentions - The National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of 2002, as amended; Executive Order (EO) 12333, as amended; EO 12958, as amended; EO 12968, EO 13467, and other applicable provisions of law.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump’s economic advisers are also his biggest donors
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trumps-economic-advisers-are-also-his-biggest-donors-226758#ixzz4GeUhnPPc

After spending months scolding his rivals for being beholden to their financial backers, Donald Trump unveiled an economic advisory council this week — and filled it with some of his biggest donors.

“He is following the path he has said was corrupt: Raising large sums of money and then giving donors special access,” said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center and former chair of the Federal Election Commission.

Steve Deace, an influential conservative activist in Iowa and anti-Trump radio host, said he was not surprised that Trump was granting his biggest donors titles and insider access. But he was still angry.

“It is complete and total hypocrisy,” Deace said.

Meanwhile Slate charges, Donald Trump’s Website Won’t Let You Cancel Recurring Donations
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...won_t_let_you_cancel_recurring_donations.html

On Thursday, Mic confirmed that, no, there is no button to undo your recurring payment to the Trump campaign. You can’t delete the recurring payment. You can’t even delete your credit card information (you can update it, but it has to be with a different valid card number). So you just keep paying Trump’s campaign, we suppose, until the end of time.

Federal Election Commission spokesperson Christian Hilland told Mic that there’s nothing illegal about this per se, that is until a person’s automatic payments put her over the maximum contribution limit of $2,700.

 

[NTL2009]

Her public statements weren't part of the investigation. It is not illegal to make false statements to the public. It is illegal to lie to the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. According to Comey, she was truthful to the FBI, so that does not clear her in front of Congress or in the public domain. ...

My point was, the FBI should have asked he the questions regarding those public statements. That seems like a normal part of an investigation to me. If someone said X,Y,Z in public, they should be asked to validate that as part of the investigation. She would then have either needed to walk back the public statements she made, or lie to the investigators. It just seems to me that they left this open, and it seems an odd thing to leave open in such an intense investigation. It makes me suspicious that the exception was done for a reason (Comey did not want to be in the position of taking out a candidate).

I'm not sure that is the case. I believe they had the hard-drives from the servers, and they retrieved and reviewed the materials themselves. Clinton did sent email to the Department of State. ...

As I understand it, she turned over paper copies, and deleted all the emails from the server. It was only later that the FBI was able to piece together the emails from some parts of the server that the deletion didn't touch.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-comey-225121

bold mine

“It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Wouldn't any other US citizen be charged with obstruction of justice, interfering with a Federal investigation, or some other related charge (I am not a lawyer)? Recall that Martha Stewart went to jail for interfering with the investigation of her stock trade, not for insider trading (I don't think they ever proved that - intent is tough to prove).

I think using public e-mail is less safe than using a private encrypted server. I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree.

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?
...

Evo, I think what russ is saying is, you took his private email is 'less safe' than public email reference and turned it into 'so public email is safe?' He didn't say that public email was safe, just likely that public is safer than her private server. I think that report indicates that the public servers have very sophisticated protection and monitoring, far more than what was used by the administrator of the HRC private server .

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered. ...

Avoid transparency for what? For some nefarious purpose or just to say she could? As in she could get away with it simply because she's Hillary Clinton and there's no other reason other than that.

As was mentioned, it sure isn't laziness to hire a private company to maintain a private server. That was a deliberate action.

Without "clear evidence" of intent, we can still make Occam's Razor type theories. How about that pesky little FOI Act? I think a reasonable person could be suspicious that this was done, and thousands of emails deleted, and devices cleaned so tthat those emails could not be produced to comply with a FOIA request. What else would Occam propose?

-NTL2009

 

[Astronuc]

Five-Thirty-Eight ongoing analysis of 2016 presidential election. It will be updated as new data are collected.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/