Will the Hillary Email Scandal Blow Over?

[dismal]

Bernie has more ground game far as I can tell.

But I don't want to rudely question your belief system.

Currently he actually doesn't. I have not signed up for any politicians emails, but I get them routinely from Hillary's campaign.

Now if you excuse me, I am off to the Iowa State Fair. I'll say "hi" to Rick Perry for you if I see him.

I didn't realize spamming emails to people who didn't sign up for them = "ground game". So I stand corrected.

 

[fromderinside]

Currently he actually doesn't. I have not signed up for any politicians emails, but I get them routinely from Hillary's campaign.

Now if you excuse me, I am off to the Iowa State Fair. I'll say "hi" to Rick Perry for you if I see him.

I didn't realize spamming emails to people who didn't sign up for them = "ground game". So I stand corrected.

Actually it does if those on the lists are proven donors.

 

[Ford]

There IS one thing that could change that...well, part of it, anyway.

If some relatively objective folks like the Inspector General's office finds that she did enough wrong for criminal charges to be brought against her - meaning her guilt would be decided in a court and not in Congress - then maybe the former could be convinced she did something wrong.

If she's exonerated by the IG's office and no charges are filed, the latter will continue believing - as they have since 1992 or so - that she's the Whore of Babylon...or worse, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Throughout this thread there has been a curious presumption that if she is not charged with criminal conduct, then she has 'done nothing wrong'. "Right and wrong" are moral judgements, not legal ones and one can have the morals and conduct of "the Whore of Babylon" without having been charged under a provision of the criminal code.

The question at the heart of the email "scandal" is not a moral one. It is a legal one. Does the former Secretary of State's handing of her email rise to the level of a criminal offense?

It is beyond dispute that the Clintons, especially Hillary, have been embroiled in decades of dubious, unethical, sleazy, and immoral behavior - so much so it has become emblematic of their personal politics.

Well that's the narrative from the right wing, at least.

Need we be reminded of the never-ending history of her (and Bill's) behavior ? (Methinks we do):

Methinks I listened to Rush Limbaugh in the 90s, so I've heard it all before.

*snips right wing talking points*

Is it any wonder many are fed up with Clinton sleaze and, in particular, Hillary?

Proof that advertising works some of the time. Yes, there are plenty of people on the right wing who are foaming-at-the-mouth fed up with Clinton, and see Hillary as being the more evil of the two. But that's been the case since before they even moved into the White House, and that has been reinforced by political opponents and pundits who turn everything the Clintons do into a "scandal."

But it goes deeper than that. The most offensive thing Bill Clinton did as far as the right wing was concerned was to get reelected. Despite the best efforts of Newt Gingrich (that paragon of moral virtue) and the GOP machine, Bubba won a second term. Well as the old saying goes, if you can't beat 'em, impeach!


The endless investigations of the then President and First Lady were not exercises in moral outrage, Max. They were not done to show the nation how "sleaze" had wormed it's way into previously pristine Washington D.C. No, it was an attempt to remove their opponent from office. The GOP learned from Nixon (another paragon of moral virtue) that if you had a big enough scandal, a President could be forced from the White House.


That's what that whole ugly circus in the 90s was about. We all knew Bill was a horn dog. We all knew he cheated on his wife. But marital infidelity is not an impeachable offense, so something else had to be drummed up. After years of investigations - which turned up no such offenses - Bill was cornered and as cheaters do, lied about it. He just happened to do so in a court of law.

As you are no doubt aware (or perhaps not), the Republicans' victory was short lived. Their effort to remove Clinton from office through impeachment failed. Not only that, but they lost the public opinion fight as well. They were seen as petty and vindictive, while Clinton went on to become one of the better liked ex-Presidents in recent history.

Sanders, Warren, or Gore (or one of the currently running) will likely win the nomination. As long as the DOJ shows some spine, and is more willing (than under Holder) to hold fellow Democrats accountable then she is toast.

Again, the Department of Justice doesn't bring charges for moral failings or "sleaze." If they don't indict Hillary, then this will just be another in a long line of "scandals" drummed up by her political opponents to try and weaken her. Mere politics, and itself every bit as sleazy as you imagine the Clintons to be.


Finally, as to Sanders (Warren and Gore are not running), he's not gaining traction among the liberals because they're repulsed by Bill and Hillary's questionable morality...no, the left in this country (such as it is) are less enchanted with Ms. Clinton merely because she is not liberal enough. She's a foreign policy hawk, is up to her neck in corporate donations, and as beholden to Wall Street as any Democratic candidate has ever been. That's what bothers liberals about her...not the scandal of the moment, or Benghazi, or Travelgate, or Vince Foster. It is worth noting that all the gains that Bernie Sanders has made against Clinton (not enough to take the nomination by a long shot) have come without a single personal attack on the former Secretary of State.


It is an interesting juxtaposition when you look at the two candidates who are now sucking up all the media oxygen, and are threatening to outshine the established candidates:


Donald J. Trump is attacking everybody.

Bernie Sanders is attacking no one.


The populist from the right is like a wrecking ball, bludgeoning his way to the top no matter who gets in his way, and the wingers are eating it up. "Finally a candidate who speaks his mind," they cheer. A mean-spirited mind, and one seemingly bent on tearing his opponents down rather than running on his own merits.

The populist from the left is bringing people together, campaigning for the little guy, and not lobbing smears against his opponents. He's gaining popularity because he speaks for the people and not for the billionaires. He's running on his record and his ideas, not "hey, I'm better than the other guy because I'm rich."

 

[PyramidHead]

In a country where a solid candidate can completely tank his chances for election by yelling enthusiastically at a campaign rally, a little thing like committing a felony probably won't sink Hillary. If she developed the hiccups during a speech, that'd be the end of her campaign.

 

[fromderinside]

The populist from the left is bringing people together, campaigning for the little guy, and not lobbing smears against his opponents. He's gaining popularity because he speaks for the people and not for the billionaires. He's running on his record and his ideas, not "hey, I'm better than the other guy because I'm rich."

First. Nice post.

Bernie and Elisabeth are more socialist than populist. Mugwhumping populism is what you're seeing on the republican side of the ledger. They're all about corruption and failure to listen to the people, thank you Jesus-ah..

On the left its more about how to do government. More social less buyer beware.

 

[dismal]

The question at the heart of the email "scandal" is not a moral one. It is a legal one.

I remember back during the whole wikileaks Julian Assange and Edward Snowden events there were people here who actually pretended that they believed that government openness and transparency were virtues.

 

[Derec]

She remains popular with Deomcrats and has built a large base of support.

I have never seen much evidence of this. All the Bern-mentum is pretty strong evidence that many are desperate for someone, anyone else.

And they sure cast he aside quickly in 2008.

Yes, I think Hillary 2016 is similar to Kerry 2004 (or Romney 2012 for that matter). Somebody whose support hinges mostly on perceptions of electability but doesn't inspire much excitement.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie and Elisabeth are more socialist than populist. Mugwhumping populism is what you're seeing on the republican side of the ledger.

Gesundheit!

 

[NobleSavage]

Again, the Department of Justice doesn't bring charges for moral failings or "sleaze." If they don't indict Hillary, then this will just be another in a long line of "scandals" drummed up by her political opponents to try and weaken her. Mere politics, and itself every bit as sleazy as you imagine the Clintons to be.

And you don't think that politics and party loyalty play a role in whether or not the Justice Department files charges?

 

[Ford]

Again, the Department of Justice doesn't bring charges for moral failings or "sleaze." If they don't indict Hillary, then this will just be another in a long line of "scandals" drummed up by her political opponents to try and weaken her. Mere politics, and itself every bit as sleazy as you imagine the Clintons to be.

And you don't think that politics and party loyalty play a role in whether or not the Justice Department files charges?

To the point where no Attorney General serving in a Democratic administration would ever pursue a case against another Democrat?

No.


Then again, this is part of the narrative that's been built up around this whole fiasco from day one. Remember, this is all part of the ongoing Benghazi investigation. Well plural...several investigations have taken place since 9/11/2012. None of them have turned up anything sinister on the part of the former Secretary of State, but when they turned up nothing, the reaction from the right wing was "well she's still hiding something...investigate again!"


So let's say the DOJ and the IG and the FBI all take a good long look at this latest issue and find no criminal wrongdoing. Will that put an end to the endless investigation? Of course not. The cry will go up (as you've foreshadowed) that the entire thing is a cover-up done by partisans who put loyalty to the party before upholding the law, and the Republicans in Congress will demand yet another investigation. They will continue to investigate right up until the second Tuesday in November.


I'm willing to make a bet on this one, because it is the safest bet I can find...if by some chance Hillary Rodham Clinton is defeated in her bid to become President - whether in the primary or on election day - the investigation(s) into Benghazi, the State Department's handling of the aftermath, the email "scandal," etc. will all come to a screeching halt. When President (Bush, Trump, Rubio) takes office and the new Republican Congress and Senate are sworn in, the years long multi-million dollar hunt to find "the truth" about Hillary Clinton will cease. Bank on it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In a country where a solid candidate can completely tank his chances for election by yelling enthusiastically at a campaign rally, a little thing like committing a felony probably won't sink Hillary. If she developed the hiccups during a speech, that'd be the end of her campaign.

"Don't you think she looks tired?"

 

[NobleSavage]

And you don't think that politics and party loyalty play a role in whether or not the Justice Department files charges?

To the point where no Attorney General serving in a Democratic administration would ever pursue a case against another Democrat?

No.

This seems fairly clear cut. She set up a private email server/network to conduct official business on and used it exclusively. Never mind the top secret stuff or the possible illegality. It's just sketchy and any other government employee would at least get fired. In the private sector that would get you fired as well. So why the hell should she be President?

Then again, this is part of the narrative that's been built up around this whole fiasco from day one. Remember, this is all part of the ongoing Benghazi investigation.

Then again, 230 some of her emails were about Benghazi. We will never know what was deleted. If there was top secret info, how can we know she didn't have it deleted? One of the servers was "wiped clean":

In addition to the home server, information was stored with a small technology company in Colorado called Platte River Networks.

Mr. Kendall has told government investigators that the server at Platte River Networks has been wiped clean. Nevertheless, F.B.I. agents went to the company this month to inquire about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...umb-drive-to-the-justice-department.html?_r=0

So, Hillary's actions are feeding the "narrative".

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

What the press reports and what actually happened, e.g. what, if any, laws were violated are usually two different things.

Based on the article I linked above, the fact that there were Top Secret documents on her private server not marked as Top Secret documents means crimes were committed.

It is illegal to have Top Secret documents on a private server and it is illegal to remove Top Secret markings from Top Secret Documents.

Again, the press gets legal issues wrong in almost every case for various reasons. Largely because they don't have the facts and therefore cannot apply the law to the facts--and because they need ratings, they'll have their legal experts spin the living shit out of it until it becomes something largely unrecognizable as legal construction.

She may very well have done something illegal, but save yourself the trouble of worrying about it until she's indicted. Even then, that doesn't mean that something illegal has happened. And if it has, then we'll find out about it... well, it depends. If she hasn't done anything illegal then she'll be anxious to get this thing settled ASAP and turn it into a political victory. If she has, then she'll want to minimize it and push it away until after the election. But that will kill her campaign. No one wants to vote for someone who could go to jail before their term is up.

But the likelihood is that there will be a question of whether what she's done is illegal and it'll be iffy. That means a drawn out period of time and a shitload of discovery. For example, if I was a prosecutor and wanted to sink her, I could reasonably say that it's going to take months to read all those emails. IOW, there's lots of room to stall.

So unless she knows she's done nothing wrong and can prove it quickly, she's screwed.

 

[Ford]

This seems fairly clear cut. She set up a private email server/network to conduct official business on and used it exclusively. Never mind the top secret stuff or the possible illegality. It's just sketchy and any other government employee would at least get fired. In the private sector that would get you fired as well. So why the hell should she be President?

If it is so clear cut, then why pray tell isn't she in federal prison already? Or at least awaiting trial for her crimes? You're basically saying here that the Justice Department is looking straight at an open and shut case and saying "nope, nothing to see here" because Democrats.

Am I reading this wrong?

Then again, 230 some of her emails were about Benghazi. We will never know what was deleted. If there was top secret info, how can we know she didn't have it deleted? One of the servers was "wiped clean"

So then we're supposed to assume that within those deleted emails is the clear evidence of wrongdoing, and proceed from there?


"Your honor, this blank page will prove the defendant is guilty!"

"Counselor, there's nothing on the page."

"I know! Damning evidence, don't you think?"

 

[NobleSavage]

If it is so clear cut, then why pray tell isn't she in federal prison already? Or at least awaiting trial for her crimes? You're basically saying here that the Justice Department is looking straight at an open and shut case and saying "nope, nothing to see here" because Democrats.

Am I reading this wrong?

Then again, 230 some of her emails were about Benghazi. We will never know what was deleted. If there was top secret info, how can we know she didn't have it deleted? One of the servers was "wiped clean"

So then we're supposed to assume that within those deleted emails is the clear evidence of wrongdoing, and proceed from there?


"Your honor, this blank page will prove the defendant is guilty!"

"Counselor, there's nothing on the page."

"I know! Damning evidence, don't you think?"

No, I was illustrating how she feeds the narrative. If she was open and transparent and used the government system that she was supposed to use, this would not be an issue.

 

[Ford]

If she was open and transparent and used the government system that she was supposed to use, this would not be an issue.

Really?

I guess it bears repeating that this is the same Hillary Clinton who - despite being exonerated repeatedly by Republican led investigations into Benghazi - is still considered by the right wing to have done something nefarious with regards to Benghazi.

Her last name is Clinton. No amount of openness and transparency would be enough to convince the right wing that she's not guilty of some sinister plot.

 

[NobleSavage]

If she was open and transparent and used the government system that she was supposed to use, this would not be an issue.

Really?

I guess it bears repeating that this is the same Hillary Clinton who - despite being exonerated repeatedly by Republican led investigations into Benghazi - is still considered by the right wing to have done something nefarious with regards to Benghazi.

Her last name is Clinton. No amount of openness and transparency would be enough to convince the right wing that she's not guilty of some sinister plot.

Yeah, there would still be attacks, but it wouldn't be taken nearly as seriously. It would probably show up on Newsmax and not the NYTs. Bernie supporters wouldn't be giddy. I'd still consider voting for her if it weren't for this and I can't be the only one. I voted for Bill and never gave much of a shit about the various scandals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/c3a37c69-f8c1-466c-871d-5da4ab4cfddb.pdf

(*) refers to the the "(51%) of registered voters feel that Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email
account during her time as Secretary of State was mainly a matter of convenience..."

Yes, it's always much more convenient to set up your own server and pay people to run it than to use the one your employer provides for you.

And when I fly I find it more convenient to build my own plane.

I've heard some pretty bad things about the government e-mail systems.

A better comparison is rich people sometimes buying their own plane rather than flying commercial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well then, your next President is going to be a criminal, because this isn't actually going to affect her getting into the White House.

I think it's been a long time since we had one that wasn't.

 

[Nexus]

If it is so clear cut, then why pray tell isn't she in federal prison already? Or at least awaiting trial for her crimes?

Because people at the top aren't held accountable in this country.

 

[laughing dog]

Her last name is Clinton. No amount of openness and transparency would be enough to convince the right wing that she's not guilty of some sinister plot.

I agree. I am not a member of the right wing, and I think her use of a private email server in direct contradiction to Federal rules is an indication of her view of privilege and her ego. Unless all other heads of Federal departments are more competent than she is, how do they function without a private server? Furthermore, if she could not see that gives the appearance of underhandedness, then she is totally clueless.

Her public actions to the revelation of this breach of rules has not invited comfort.

Do I think there is a vast conspiracy? No. Do I think she is hiding something that is embarrassing or possibly truly damaging? Yes.