Hillary's Emailgate - The scandal that keeps on giving!

[maxparrish]

Its odd that several posters are in near pathological denial - unlike Joe Biden, and the many democrats who are desperately looking for a plan B. The Hillary campaign has had more battery dead restarts than a rusting 1947 farm pickup. She has shown herself to be an even worse campaigner than she was in 2008, and has found her tired themes of "war on women" and "I care about the middle class" is not longer believed. She has been mired in horrible press, ranging from "we were dead broke" to the 'not so broke' multi-hundred million dollar foundation raking in domestic and foreign contributions from cronies seeking favors.

For the hear no, see no, speak no negative thoughts regarding Clinton, the facts and polls that they cannot see:

First, in the most recent survey, the percentage of Democrats who indicate they plan to vote for Clinton sinks to 42 percent -- 18 points lower than the support she saw in April. Although she still has a substantial national lead among Democrats, her numbers are plunging in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Second, her approval numbers are collapsing among all voters. For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/

Looking at the national numbers, Clinton's favorable numbers have come close to collapsing over the past eight months or so; her unfavorable numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are, without exaggeration, near Trump-ian levels -- and that's a very bad thing considering they are the first two states that will cast votes in the primaries and two key swing states in the general election....

But why? My working theory is that Clinton not only returned to the political world but also did so in the least desirable way possible for people who were already predisposed not to like her: Riding a series of stories about her e-mails and the Clinton Foundation donors. ...

Clinton has had a remarkably bad run of press since she officially became a candidate -- punctuated by the now-almost-a-week-long focus on the investigations into whether or not she sent classified materials from her private e-mail address. To date there have only really been two storylines surrounding Clinton in the presidential contest: 1) How she is inevitable as the Democratic nominee, and 2) How her past dealings at the State Department (and after it) are problematic for her presidential campaign.

Third, the one-time locked up primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire now shows her support is crumbling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-9-n-h-gains-iowa-n422111

Bernie Sanders has jumped out to a nine-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and he's gained ground on her among Iowa voters in the Democratic presidential race, according to a pair of brand-new NBC News/Marist polls.

In New Hampshire, the Vermont senator gets the support of 41 percent of Democratic voters, Clinton gets 32 percent and Vice President Joe Biden gets 16 percent. No other Democratic candidate receives more than 1 percent.

Without Biden in the race, Sanders' lead over Clinton in the current survey increases to 11 points, 49 percent to 38 percent.

In Iowa, Clinton maintains her previous advantage over Sanders — but her lead has declined from 24 points in July (49 percent to 25 percent) to 11 points (38 percent to 27 percent); Biden sits at 20 percent.

Drip...drip...drip...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Its odd that several posters are in near pathological denial - unlike Joe Biden, and the many democrats who are desperately looking for a plan B.

I can understand why you think that way about the posters here.

The Hillary campaign has had more battery dead restarts than a rusting 1947 farm pickup. She has shown herself to be an even worse campaigner than she was in 2008, and has found her tired themes of "war on women" and "I care about the middle class" is not longer believed. She has been mired in horrible press, ranging from "we were dead broke" to the 'not so broke' multi-hundred million dollar foundation raking in domestic and foreign contributions from cronies seeking favors.

*sigh*

For the hear no, see no, speak no negative thoughts regarding Clinton, the facts and polls that they cannot see:

See... that is the thing, many of us rather Clinton not run, and have said so, but you are so blinded by your own views of people that you apparently are incapable of reading.

First, in the most recent survey, the percentage of Democrats who indicate they plan to vote for Clinton sinks to 42 percent -- 18 points lower than the support she saw in April. Although she still has a substantial national lead among Democrats, her numbers are plunging in Iowa and New Hampshire.

They are dropping, yes and Bernie Sanders is making a run for it. Clinton is looking to the South, however, to bolster minority support, where Sanders has to start with a clean and previously unseen slate.

Second, her approval numbers are collapsing among all voters. For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...r-poll-numbers-to-make-hillary-clinton-sweat/

Third, the one-time locked up primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire now shows her support is crumbling.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-9-n-h-gains-iowa-n422111

Bernie Sanders has jumped out to a nine-point lead over front-runner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, and he's gained ground on her among Iowa voters in the Democratic presidential race, according to a pair of brand-new NBC News/Marist polls.

In New Hampshire, the Vermont senator gets the support of 41 percent of Democratic voters, Clinton gets 32 percent and Vice President Joe Biden gets 16 percent. No other Democratic candidate receives more than 1 percent.

Without Biden in the race, Sanders' lead over Clinton in the current survey increases to 11 points, 49 percent to 38 percent.

In Iowa, Clinton maintains her previous advantage over Sanders — but her lead has declined from 24 points in July (49 percent to 25 percent) to 11 points (38 percent to 27 percent); Biden sits at 20 percent.

Drip...drip...drip...

So her approval ratings are about what they were when she ran in 2008? And how many months are we from the Iowa caucus?

 

[maxparrish]

For those paying attention to the obvious correlation between the email scandal and her collapsing polls, their is plenty of ongoing amusement. Naturally the "what about Bush" don't find it nearly as amusing as those who care little for Ms. Clinton.

And like any mini-series, one must be patient for the series finale that delivers the 'death blow of mercy' to Ms. Clinton. In the meantime, more news from the NY Times:



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/u...s-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?src=twr&_r=0


Drip...drip...drip...

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless. Civil investigations are not common for the FBI, and "no target" investigations easily change as the evidence is uncovered. As the rationalizing Hillary talking point goes: they're just investigating the breach of national security through a secret server operated in violation of State department classification and email rules, the operation she has been lying about. They really don't care if she is culpable for her actions if it resulted in a Russian or Chinese penetration of all the US Secretary of State's email, or if Hillary or aides compromised national security by sending hundreds of classified emails, thwarted accountability rules, or violated federal laws. Honestly, they don't want her held accountable.

That may or may not be true; we will see how politically corrupt the FBI and/or DOJ is.

 

[laughing dog]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless. Civil investigations are not common for the FBI, and "no target" investigations easily change as the evidence is uncovered. As the rationalizing Hillary talking point goes: they're just investigating the breach of national security through a secret server operated in violation of State department classification and email rules, the operation she has been lying about. They really don't care if she is culpable for her actions if it resulted in a Russian or Chinese penetration of all the US Secretary of State's email, or if Hillary or aides compromised national security by sending hundreds of classified emails, thwarted accountability rules, or violated federal laws. Honestly, they don't want her held accountable.

That may or may not be true; we will see how politically corrupt the FBI and/or DOJ is.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that if the FBI does not charge Clinton for treason that one of resident ideologues will rant about how corrupt the FBI is?

 

[maxparrish]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless. Civil investigations are not common for the FBI, and "no target" investigations easily change as the evidence is uncovered. As the rationalizing Hillary talking point goes: they're just investigating the breach of national security through a secret server operated in violation of State department classification and email rules, the operation she has been lying about. They really don't care if she is culpable for her actions if it resulted in a Russian or Chinese penetration of all the US Secretary of State's email, or if Hillary or aides compromised national security by sending hundreds of classified emails, thwarted accountability rules, or violated federal laws. Honestly, they don't want her held accountable.

That may or may not be true; we will see how politically corrupt the FBI and/or DOJ is.

Why do I get the distinct feeling that if the FBI does not charge Clinton for treason that one of resident ideologues will rant about how corrupt the FBI is?

Treason? No.
Violations of federal statutes on the handling of classified material? Yes.

But they won't be the one actually charging, they must refer a criminal complaint it to the DOJ and Obama's gal to decide.

 

[Ford]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless.

Hey I'm just quoting the source you were trumpeting earlier in the day.

We will see how politically corrupt the FBI and/or DOJ is.

So when the New York Times seems to say Hillary is toast (not entirely true) you're a fan. When the FBI/DOJ are snipping at her heels, you're a fan.


When and if neither deliver a sufficient level of comeuppance, you figure they're wrong at best, and corrupt at worst.


I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

 

[RavenSky]

So, if this is the scandal that keeps on giving, where are the arrests and stuff?

What I find odd is that it may have been illegal or against regulations to handle her email as such, but completely legal for the same branch of Government to divulge the identity of a secret agent. Or to publicly divulge secret military capabilities. Because this shit has all been about top secret stuff being put at risk. Yet, the right-wing didn't seem to have much trouble when the W Admin outed a secret agent and told the world we could arm our drones.

Not just outed them, but did so as political payback. This is exactly the incident I keep thinking about while listening to the faux-outrage about the UN-classified non-secret emails.

- - - Updated - - -

I haven't been following this.

So what exactly did they find that is damaging?

Nothing.

Oh wait...

gefilte fish

 

[maxparrish]

You can't make this stuff up: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/252942-kerry-taps-transparency-czar-for-state-dept

Secretary of State John Kerry is tapping a "transparency" czar to oversee the department's preservation of documents.

Ambassador Janice Jacobs, a former career diplomat, will serve as the State Department's first "transparency coordinator," Kerry announced Tuesday.

Jacobs previously served as assistant secretary of State for consular affairs and before that post helped revise U.S. visa application practices after 9/11.

She will now lead the department's efforts to improve systems for maintaining records and responding to public requests and congressional inquiries....

"Our records, and our ability to share them, serve as testament to our commitment to transparency and open government. I take very seriously that responsibility, and so does everyone else at the State Department."

CNN first reported the appointment, dubbing the position "email czar."

The move comes as the State Department struggles to respond to a slew of document requests relating mostly to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate....

Those requests from federal judges and members of Congress come amid a federal probe into Clinton's use of a private email server while she served as secretary of State, from 2009 to 2013...

Isn't that great? Another czar, (aka a politically minded "commissar") to facilitate and promote transparency of the Clinton State Department. Don't think so? They appointed a generous Hillary supporter to the position to facilitate her "transparent" email release. What slipped Kerry's mind in the announcement was:

In a later interview she commented: (http://www.wsj.com/articles/pick-fo...y-czar-donated-to-clinton-campaign-1441758000)

“I think that the announcement lays it out pretty clearly what Secretary Kerry has hired me for and it’s not just the Clinton emails, but in general to make sure that the department is as responsive and efficient as it can be in handling the various document requests that come in,” she said. “He just wants to make sure it’s all well-coordinated and that deadlines are met and that we just look proactive and responsive.”


There you have it!

 

[maxparrish]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless.

Hey I'm just quoting the source you were trumpeting earlier in the day.

Yes, I am sure the quote was a random choice on your part - likely as random as your bold-facing that she was not the target of the investigation. I thought, for a moment, you might actually be selecting a quote to make a point...thanks for disabusing me of that notion.

We will see how politically corrupt the FBI and/or DOJ is.

So when the New York Times seems to say Hillary is toast (not entirely true) you're a fan. When the FBI/DOJ are snipping at her heels, you're a fan.


When and if neither deliver a sufficient level of comeuppance, you figure they're wrong at best, and corrupt at worst.


I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

The politicization of the DOJ is well documented; and like it or not the FBI has to follow their orders. Need some book recommendations?

 

[Ford]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless.

Hey I'm just quoting the source you were trumpeting earlier in the day.

Yes, I am sure the quote was a random choice on your part

Look, if you can't be bothered to read the articles you post to support your claims, then someone else has to do it.


Your skimming of the quoted article makes it seem as if the FBI is digging deep into the nefarious Clinton email "scandal," just itching for a reason to charge her with high crimes and treason, but a further reading (which you obviously failed to do) reveals that she's - dare I say it - helping the FBI track down the source of the classified document leak in question.


But hey, you just go on believing this is the next Watergate if that makes you feel better.

 

[untermensche]

What those obsessed with Hillary should understand is her choices now are to live as president or to live as a rich princess, adored by her fans, her every word dissected as if it were holy scripture.

That is the fate that awaits her.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Look, if you can't be bothered to read the articles you post to support your claims, then someone else has to do it.


Your skimming of the quoted article makes it seem as if the FBI is digging deep into the nefarious Clinton email "scandal," just itching for a reason to charge her with high crimes and treason, but a further reading (which you obviously failed to do) reveals that she's - dare I say it - helping the FBI track down the source of the classified document leak in question.


But hey, you just go on believing this is the next Watergate if that makes you feel better.

You phrased that wrong. It's actually Clinton helping Obama's jackbooted thugs in the FBI to cover up who leaked the classified information. Given that Clinton is the one who deliberately leaked that classified information for the sake of evil, she's an invaluable source to their efforts.

 

[Playball40]

Truth is I don't give a crap about emails, email servers blah blah blah. Wouldn't care regardless of who is being accused.

 

[dismal]

You're kidding? The legal and political issue has been her retention of classified (and now Top Secret) information on her server, which is illegal and which she has denied (lied) about.

What information? Or is it so top secret only the shadow government knows?

Turns out that when they release her emails they redact it because it's classified.

Or at least that's what the Republicans in charge of releasing her emails want you to think.

 

[maxparrish]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless.

Hey I'm just quoting the source you were trumpeting earlier in the day.

Yes, I am sure the quote was a random choice on your part

Look, if you can't be bothered to read the articles you post to support your claims, then someone else has to do it.

Your skimming of the quoted article makes it seem as if the FBI is digging deep into the nefarious Clinton email "scandal," just itching for a reason to charge her with high crimes and treason, but a further reading (which you obviously failed to do) reveals that she's - dare I say it - helping the FBI track down the source of the classified document leak in question.

Recall that I suggested that for those who see a correlation between Hillary's plummeting poll numbers and her email scandal, there was more news. I quoted the news, i.e. "Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email". I did not make it "seem" anything other than what it was - a factual finding that Clinton emails had a second review and it "endorsed a finding by the inspector general for the intelligence agencies that the emails contained highly classified information" In other words, Clinton's denial is nonsense.

Your "intensive" reading tossed out a canard about the FBI in order to reassure the faithful, the non-news that the FBI says she is not the target. We know that claim, its was part of Hillary's talking points a month ago. It has zero relevance to the actual news AND to underscore that I explained to you why it does not mean what you think it means.

What it makes it "seem" is that she has been lying.

But hey, you just go on believing this is the next Watergate if that makes you feel better.

What makes me feel better is an exchange with anyone who understands that her polls and the growing scandal are related - with or without FBI claims of "no targeting".

That said, it seems I was incorrect. It is not a civil investigation but a criminal probe. But it won't become the next Watergate till their is a criminal referral. We shall see.

 

[Ford]

Recall that I suggested that for those who see a correlation between Hillary's plummeting poll numbers and her email scandal, there was more news.

"Those?" You mean yourself. You're the one here pushing the narrative that the poll numbers and the email "scandal" are related. You haven't even begun to establish that with any sort of facts...just posted a couple of charts and made the assertion that it is all due to the email issue.

What makes me feel better is an exchange with anyone who understands that her polls and the growing scandal are related - with or without FBI claims of "no targeting".

So it would make you feel better if someone came along and said "wow, max, you sure are on top of things here! I completely agree! Die Hillary, die!"


If you want people to just agree with everything you say and not challenge your assertions, this is probably not the place. May I suggest Free Republic?

We shall see.

Yes, we will. If it happens that this whole scandal blows over and Hillary is charged with nothing, we shall see you claim the whole system is rigged, that the FBI and DOJ are corrupt, and you'll continue to believe everything you imagined about Hillary Clinton.

 

[dismal]

Well, those who say this doesn't matter and isn't affecting anything were dealt a harsh blow today as the republicans at the NYT report Hillary's focus groups show no one cares about much else:

Last week, Mrs. Clinton’s aides showed a video of that news conference to a New Hampshire focus group of independents and Democrats, according to a Democrat briefed on the focus group whose account was confirmed by a person in her campaign. Participants said they wanted to hear more from Mrs. Clinton about the issue.

The focus group also showed that the email issue was drowning out nearly everything else that Mrs. Clinton was hoping to communicate to voters — something Mrs. Clinton and her husband have complained about to friends.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...il-server-a-mistake-says-im-sorry-about-that/

The good news is the Hillarybot has been taken in and reprogrammed with a more authentic focus group tested set of autoresponses to questions about the email server.

 

[dismal]

Yes, we will. If it happens that this whole scandal blows over and Hillary is charged with nothing, we shall see you claim the whole system is rigged, that the FBI and DOJ are corrupt, and you'll continue to believe everything you imagined about Hillary Clinton.

There is also the possibility that a few people expect more from a President than "lying, careless and stupid, but not charged with any crimes".

 

[dismal]

The new Hillarybot gets poor reviews from the Republicans at MSNBC:

[YOUTUBE]sbHgd8eIJl4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Canard DuJour]

Further on down in the article (emphasis added):

Mrs. Clinton has said that her emails contained no information that was marked classified — having classified information outside a secure government account is illegal — and that she is fully cooperating with an F.B.I. investigation to determine who at the State Department may have passed highly classified information from secure networks to her personal account. She herself is not a target of the investigation.

You might be right, but their denial it is nearly meaningless.

Hey I'm just quoting the source you were trumpeting earlier in the day.

Yes, I am sure the quote was a random choice on your part

Look, if you can't be bothered to read the articles you post to support your claims, then someone else has to do it.

To be fair, it is rather dull.