Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Are you ready with your mea culpa if the anointed-one gets beaten by Trump? That may be the end of both parties, and it's not all that unlikely.

More to the point, will the apparatchiks in the Democratic Party accept their responsibility for that? They pushed out Dean and they lost with Kerry. Now they're pushing Sanders to the wall, and may be enabling a Trump win. I don't see Hillary as being a strong candidate at all. For those of you who do, take the hit if it all goes sour.

You can count on me taking responsibility for my role.

Whether its Bernie or Hillary as the nominee, and whether that nominee wins or loses, I'll be working my butt off, more than most, to keep the WH in the Dems hands.

I rather that mea culpa be a happy moment, recalling our eventual victory. I think that's a lot less likely with Sanders because of his stance on taxes. Really, in this supposed revolution against the Establishment, the answer is to raise EVEYRYONE"S taxes ??? If I was the GOP I'd be licking my chops. I realize he has the nuances of how health insurance payments, for some, will more than make up for higher taxes - BUT I can't think of a better example of one of the oldest rules in politics - if you are explaining you're losing.

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- she's not, esp not with an FBI investigation hanging over her head. Don't understand why the DNC is doubling down on her since her candidacy can implode in a hot minute. Then what will they be left with?

Let's see if you can be honest about this issue -

What finding by the FBI investigation would allow you to say that there is nothing there?

Obviously, if they find criminal activity on her part, for example, willfully releasing classified information, I believe you would find that as a problem.

But what if they just came out and said no criminal activity, but it was just inappropriate? And, for you, anything, including just having emails with POST-classified information (something that was also the case for previous SoS as well as the President's National Security Advisor) would be sufficient to disqualify her?

Are you willing to tell us what you think the bar is BEFORE the FBI reports out? Or, will you just keep reading the GOP script that they hand you?

Originally Posted by marypoza

Operative words- "she knew". What is it they say, something about ignorance of the law being no excuse? The whole thing is getting shadier & shadier, & it could blow up in her face

"she knew" exactly what? What did she know that you believe disqualifier her?

This should be fun.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Kansas got Berned, Nebraska got Berned, gawd bless prairie populism!!


http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...uper-saturday/

Funny how you didn't mention that at the end of the night, Hillary increased her delegate lead over Bernie.

Feel the burn, yet?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I'm sure Hillary does not BELIEVE she has done anything wrong. But we all know about False Innocence Belief Syndrome (FIBS).

And what exactly do you believe HC did wrong and is now FIBing about?

Oh, and can you explain without using your provided GOP talking points?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The problem with HAVING such an email is that Hillary has no control over someone SENDING HER classified info (or sensitive info that should be classified and which an intelligence analyst can use to deduce the US Govt.'s stance on a subject) even if she does not SEND such info. Already a number of those emails have been classified.
When a man can almost lose his security clearance and his job for idly spinning the dial of his office safe with classified info in it, security is something that has to be taken VERY seriously.
This could blow up in Hillary's face even if Hillary isn't indicted. For the reasons you just mentioned, Eric, it is too easy to ascribe political motives for a non-indictment. A major segment of the public will NOT believe that a failure to indict Hillary Clinton is NOT politically motivated and for that reason, may build political support for Trump because of an attitude "Damn it! These crooks don't get to win this time!" Gore had nothing to do with the Clinton Scandals of the 90s and should have won against a lightweight Republican challenger. The weight of the Clinton Scandals dragged Gore down even as it made Democrats, especially African-Americans close ranks behind the Clintons and Gore.
No, the Dems may have lost their chance to keep the White House (dicey after an incumbent's two terms in any case) by "pre-selecting" Hillary Clinton. An indictment and Hillary withdrawing leaving Sanders the nominee by default is probably the only way the Dems can defeat Trump or Cruz now. The Dems really should have gone with Joe Biden or failing that, Martin O'Malley if they don't like Bernie.

The relatively few emails deemed classified were not marked classified in the emails, the information was not determined classified until now and were not sent by her. Colin Powell has railed against this happening to him (post-classification), calling it silly, and it has happened to other SoS as well as the WH National Security Advisor. So explain to me what it is you see here as so problematic let alone criminal. Oh, and again, can you do it without your provided GOP talking points?

So your beef comes down to her having a private server, ey? You do know that the Dept of State's email server was hacked just last summer? You do know that other SoS have used commercial email servers? Do you think those are less vulnerable that a private server? Why? Please explain. Oh, and can you do it without your provided GOP talking points?

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Do you expect Boomers to accept responsibility for anything?

This one does.

But admittedly its a tad easier when one is committed to supporting whoever is the eventual Dem nominee.

If the GOP captures the WH and turns the SCOTUS to t-baggin for the next several decades, I think that will have more to do with adolescent narcissists who stays home because they didn't get exactly what they wanted - let's see if those poor babies take responsible for building that.

Originally Posted by marypoza

Yup! Maine got Berned

Yep, and Hillary increased her delegate lead.

Isn't it weird how reality keeps creeping in?

Originally Posted by playwrite

The relatively few emails deemed classified were not marked classified in the emails, the information was not determined classified until now and were not sent by her. Colin Powell has railed against this happening to him (post-classification), calling it silly, and it has happened to other SoS as well as the WH National Security Advisor. So explain to me what it is you see here as so problematic let alone criminal. Oh, and again, can you do it without your provided GOP talking points?

So your beef comes down to her having a private server, ey? You do know that the Dept of State's email server was hacked just last summer? You do know that other SoS have used commercial email servers? Do you think those are less vulnerable that a private server? Why? Please explain. Oh, and can you do it without your provided GOP talking points?

That's what I just said. Emails received about sensitive subjects over open servers are just as serious from a security point of view as emails sent. And simply having a net address to which such sensitive material can be sent that's insecure is as much of a security breach as if she sent it. Whatever the criminal culpability, it is still abysmally poor judgement. Obama did not create this problem with his famous Blackberry. But then Obama had a CIA Station Chief for a maternal grandfather.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The problem with HAVING such an email is that Hillary has no control over someone SENDING HER classified info (or sensitive info that should be classified and which an intelligence analyst can use to deduce the US Govt.'s stance on a subject) even if she does not SEND such info. Already a number of those emails have been classified.

When a man can almost lose his security clearance and his job for idly spinning the dial of his office safe with classified info in it, security is something that has to be taken VERY seriously.

This could blow up in Hillary's face even if Hillary isn't indicted. For the reasons you just mentioned, Eric, it is too easy to ascribe political motives for a non-indictment. A major segment of the public will NOT believe that a failure to indict Hillary Clinton is NOT politically motivated and for that reason, may build political support for Trump because of an attitude "Damn it! These crooks don't get to win this time!" Gore had nothing to do with the Clinton Scandals of the 90s and should have won against a lightweight Republican challenger. The weight of the Clinton Scandals dragged Gore down even as it made Democrats, especially African-Americans close ranks behind the Clintons and Gore.
No, the Dems may have lost their chance to keep the White House (dicey after an incumbent's two terms in any case) by "pre-selecting" Hillary Clinton. An indictment and Hillary withdrawing leaving Sanders the nominee by default is probably the only way the Dems can defeat Trump or Cruz now. The Dems really should have gone with Joe Biden or failing that, Martin O'Malley if they don't like Bernie.

No, OMalley and Biden were sure losers. They are not articulate at all. Hillary is; Bernie is.

If Hillary is not indicted, demagogues might complain, but it won't necessarily fool the people. The FBI is making an honest investigation and sane people know it. She was just following accepted practice in using her private server. But Republicans want to blame her instead of Bush's Secretaries of State.

We don't know yet if Clinton has lost the White House; that will be up to the voters between now and November.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That's what I just said. Emails received about sensitive subjects over open servers are just as serious from a security point of view as emails sent. And simply having a net address to which such sensitive material can be sent that's insecure is as much of a security breach as if she sent it. Whatever the criminal culpability, it is still abysmally poor judgement. Obama did not create this problem with his famous Blackberry. But then Obama had a CIA Station Chief for a maternal grandfather.

There is a separate email system to send classified and sensitive information. Someone who used any system, whether State's non-classified system, commercial email servers, or their own computers, should be subject to whatever legal consequences that would entail. So far, there is no evidence that Clinton did any of that. And before we throw a lot of hard working, many in dangerous jobs, people who are trying to protect this country, maybe we should take into account the convenience by some to POST classify information, i.e., information that no one knew at the time should be classified.

Your beef is with her private email server, but there are some problems with that argument as well. What evidence do you have that would show her private server was less secure than State's non-classified system (which was hacked) or a commercial server (which is what Colin Powell and Condi Rice turned to)? What law or even federal regulation did she actually violate at the time (guidelines for Obama's executive order came out 6 months after she left State)? Some say she violated "the spirit" of the regulation, but that is in regard to going the extra step to make sure her emails became part of the public record - that has nothing to do with classified information; so what's the beef exactly?

The entire beef is based on Clinton doing something special because she thinks she's above it all - and then comes the usual GOP hate derangement syndrome of her being nefarious, secretive, calculating, and most important of all, "above the law!" - which, as noted above, is pure horseypoo. And a lot of people, who otherwise would be Progressives, buy into the GOP dribble because they see that Clinton thinks of herself as more special than themselves. They simply can't take the fact that as a Secretary of State, alone, she was very very special and could do just about whatever the hell she wanted, answering only to one man, the President, because that's the way it works - it is the BIG LEAGUE that most of us will never even get a glimmer of. And that's even before she becomes the first woman President, which will especially piss off a whole lot of the less special people.

One of the elements of resolving this issue is a lot of people need to get over themselves - I hate to break the news to them, they're really not that special - at least in comparison to Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Do you expect Boomers to accept responsibility for anything?

As a Boomer in good standing myself, I'll have to say: probably not.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The problem with HAVING such an email is that Hillary has no control over someone SENDING HER classified info (or sensitive info that should be classified and which an intelligence analyst can use to deduce the US Govt.'s stance on a subject) even if she does not SEND such info. Already a number of those emails have been classified.
When a man can almost lose his security clearance and his job for idly spinning the dial of his office safe with classified info in it, security is something that has to be taken VERY seriously.
This could blow up in Hillary's face even if Hillary isn't indicted. For the reasons you just mentioned, Eric, it is too easy to ascribe political motives for a non-indictment. A major segment of the public will NOT believe that a failure to indict Hillary Clinton is NOT politically motivated and for that reason, may build political support for Trump because of an attitude "Damn it! These crooks don't get to win this time!" Gore had nothing to do with the Clinton Scandals of the 90s and should have won against a lightweight Republican challenger. The weight of the Clinton Scandals dragged Gore down even as it made Democrats, especially African-Americans close ranks behind the Clintons and Gore.
No, the Dems may have lost their chance to keep the White House (dicey after an incumbent's two terms in any case) by "pre-selecting" Hillary Clinton. An indictment and Hillary withdrawing leaving Sanders the nominee by default is probably the only way the Dems can defeat Trump or Cruz now. The Dems really should have gone with Joe Biden or failing that, Martin O'Malley if they don't like Bernie.

What Clinton did was the same as what Powell and Rice did. IN their case it is just another case of IOKIYAAR. But for her it's IACIYAD.

This "scandal" is nothing compared to the ones the Right would manufacture about Sanders were he perceived by them to have any chance at the nomination.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The relatively few emails deemed classified were not marked classified in the emails, the information was not determined classified until now and were not sent by her. Colin Powell has railed against this happening to him (post-classification), calling it silly, and it has happened to other SoS as well as the WH National Security Advisor. So explain to me what it is you see here as so problematic let alone criminal. Oh, and again, can you do it without your provided GOP talking points?

So your beef comes down to her having a private server, ey? You do know that the Dept of State's email server was hacked just last summer? You do know that other SoS have used commercial email servers? Do you think those are less vulnerable that a private server? Why? Please explain. Oh, and can you do it without your provided GOP talking points?

Something I find interesting is the hacking (by Russia and China). Having off-the-books servers on black budgets should actually be a requirement. Who's got loose lips here? Are there Russian and Chinese moles in the DoS, FBI and other entities, who actually started this whole thing in order to stop the use of off-the-books servers?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This "scandal" is nothing compared to the ones the Right would manufacture about Sanders were he perceived by them to have any chance at the nomination.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What Clinton did was the same as what Powell and Rice did. IN their case it is just another case of IOKIYAAR. But for her it's IACIYAD.

This "scandal" is nothing compared to the ones the Right would manufacture about Sanders were he perceived by them to have any chance at the nomination.

I easiest way to fix this problem is to do unto them as they have done unto you. A good witch hunt requires a potential witch and someone to run the hunt. The GOP uses House committees, but they would be happy to run it through the Justice Department if they had control of that. The solution, assuming the Dems are held to minority status in Congress, is to run investigations of the investigations, making back-handed accusation that the GOP is running these investigations without any cause, in violation of <insert some law that fits the bill>.

I doubt this will happen, but the alternative is the current status of the Dems as perpetual targets.

After all the release of all kinds of classified emails by the hackers, does anyone really give a flying f*** about Hillary's so-called indiscretions?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Funny how you didn't mention that at the end of the night, Hillary increased her delegate lead over Bernie.

Feel the burn, yet?

And the next day Bernie edged ahead for the weekend in Maine.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

So far, the Enquirer (which has endorsed Trump) has dredged up some fictional writings of Sanders from about 1970 that would purport to be sexually explicit and a vote against a bill that included a provision to charge child molesters for acts against minors overseas as "sex tourists". Peanuts compared to allegations against establishment Dems like Barney Frank. I don't think Bernie would have run if there was anything more serious than something like that.

Originally Posted by TnT

After all the release of all kinds of classified emails by the hackers, does anyone really give a flying f*** about Hillary's so-called indiscretions?

If these indiscretions result in impeachment proceedings from the time Hillary takes office people will indeed care. It makes Hillary politically a very weak President for one thing. Just how strong was Bill Clinton when he was fighting off impeachment?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I easiest way to fix this problem is to do unto them as they have done unto you. A good witch hunt requires a potential witch and someone to run the hunt. The GOP uses House committees, but they would be happy to run it through the Justice Department if they had control of that. The solution, assuming the Dems are held to minority status in Congress, is to run investigations of the investigations, making back-handed accusation that the GOP is running these investigations without any cause, in violation of <insert some law that fits the bill>.

I doubt this will happen, but the alternative is the current status of the Dems as perpetual targets.

The Dems ARE perpetual targets as long as they are the minority party in EITHER Congressional House. When the Dems had control of Congress the reverse was true. Watergate and Iran-Contra were possible because the Dems controlled Congress at the time. It turns into a tit-for-tat payback whenever Congress and the White House are of opposing parties. What the parties are really angling for is leverage against one another. Scandal is a good way to get it. Obama avoided it because his prior record was close to squeaky clean, if thin.
A President Trump will attract a lot of scandal too if the Dems recapture Congress in 2 or 4 years. Just as Nixon did. It's part of our checks and balances even if we voters do find it tiresome.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, OMalley and Biden were sure losers. They are not articulate at all. Hillary is; Bernie is.

If Hillary is not indicted, demagogues might complain, but it won't necessarily fool the people. The FBI is making an honest investigation and sane people know it. She was just following accepted practice in using her private server. But Republicans want to blame her instead of Bush's Secretaries of State.

We don't know yet if Clinton has lost the White House; that will be up to the voters between now and November.

I was very disappointed that Jim Webb did not get farther than he did. But I have to admit. Webb was not that articulate in the early debates. Trump stole many of Webb's potential voters.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is a separate email system to send classified and sensitive information. Someone who used any system, whether State's non-classified system, commercial email servers, or their own computers, should be subject to whatever legal consequences that would entail. So far, there is no evidence that Clinton did any of that. And before we throw a lot of hard working, many in dangerous jobs, people who are trying to protect this country, maybe we should take into account the convenience by some to POST classify information, i.e., information that no one knew at the time should be classified.

I agree that post-classification is greatly abused. And futile. We need to remember that things like access to a high official's email to be able to divine intentions is something that intelligence agencies live for. Scraps of this kind of info. are pieced together in intelligence reports all the time. No Drama Obama has always been much less penetrable.

Your beef is with her private email server, but there are some problems with that argument as well. What evidence do you have that would show her private server was less secure than State's non-classified system (which was hacked) or a commercial server (which is what Colin Powell and Condi Rice turned to)? What law or even federal regulation did she actually violate at the time (guidelines for Obama's executive order came out 6 months after she left State)? Some say she violated "the spirit" of the regulation, but that is in regard to going the extra step to make sure her emails became part of the public record - that has nothing to do with classified information; so what's the beef exactly?
Impenetrability has to be the gold standard. Especially if we are going to start demanding back doors from companies like Apple because of fears that terrorists will "go dark".
It's a big issue for Hillary and one that has more than a hint of payack. It was Hillary who, along with Webster Hubbell led an unsuccessful push to ban strong encryption (the Clipper Chip) during her husband's administration. For techies of a libertarian persuasion, the email controversy is sweet revenge.

The en

tire beef is based on Clinton doing something special because she thinks she's above it all - and then comes the usual GOP hate derangement syndrome of her being nefarious, secretive, calculating, and most important of all, "above the law!" - which, as noted above, is pure horseypoo. And a lot of people, who otherwise would be Progressives, buy into the GOP dribble because they see that Clinton thinks of herself as more special than themselves. They simply can't take the fact that as a Secretary of State, alone, she was very very special and could do just about whatever the hell she wanted, answering only to one man, the President, because that's the way it works - it is the BIG LEAGUE that most of us will never even get a glimmer of. And that's even before she becomes the first woman President, which will especially piss off a whole lot of the less special people.

That sounds very ironic. The way people talk about Trump actually. It's the same kind of authoritarianism--which the Clintons played to in their heyday in the 90s, a time in which they were the Great Ones and Republicans had mainly conservatives and scurried around trying to prevent the Clintons from being above the law.
I'm sure Donald Trump if elected will be just as full of himself as Hillary. And if the Dems can build a real Left Movement that can recapture Congress, they will be in a position to do to The Donald as the Republicans are doing to Hillary. Which by the way they have never been able to do to Obama because Obama is FAR more careful and yes, secretive than the Clintons know how to be. I guess being raised by a retired CIA Station Chief (Beirut) grandfather will do that to you.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I was very disappointed that Jim Webb did not get farther than he did. But I have to admit. Webb was not that articulate in the early debates. Trump stole many of Webb's potential voters.

I'm not that interested myself in a former Republican who still talked like one.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If these indiscretions result in impeachment proceedings from the time Hillary takes office people will indeed care. It makes Hillary politically a very weak President for one thing. Just how strong was Bill Clinton when he was fighting off impeachment?

I would say, bring it on. Gingrich had to resign after the Republicans lost ground following the previous witch hunt.