Hillary's Troubles Solidify

[seanD]

Then that would be Dems voting for two really old white guys. Wouldn't that take the cake?

I think those consequences would be far less disastrous for them if they were to pick someone while entirely shunning Sanders and his supporters. What we saw at the DNC was possibly just a microcosm.

[One Bad Pig]

I think those consequences would be far less disastrous for them if they were to pick someone while entirely shunning Sanders and his supporters. What we saw at the DNC was possibly just a microcosm.

I think you missed the irony.

[Starlight]

This week in Hillary Troubles we learned...

* That some emails sent and received were "marked classified", contrary to her previous claims.
* That some emails sent and received by her concerned giving approval for drone assassinations.
* That some of her emails may have contained information about undercover CIA operations.
* That the details of her IT aide's immunity agreement are themselves too sensitive to be released because it "could prematurely reveal the scope and focus of the pending investigation". ie They're investigating something other than merely her emails.
* Likewise as I posted earlier this week: In a different court filing, the FBI said they couldn't release any of the Clinton emails they have because "even disclosing the total volume of... information... could reasonably be expected to reveal information about the nature, scope, focus, and conduct of this on-going investigation, and thus cannot be publicly disclosed without undermining the law enforcement interests [of] the FBI" and "could reasonably lead to... defensive actions to conceal activities, elude detection, and/or suppress or fabricate evidence".
* That she was responsible for putting an unqualified Clinton-Foundation-donating, Wall St trader, on a sensitive State Department intelligence board thus giving him access to inside information for use in trading.

It seems apparent that the FBI is going after someone with regard to something to do with Clinton's emails that isn't publicly obvious. ie there's apparently a lot more to it than "Clinton had an insecure email server thus putting sensitive information at risk, and didn't do a good job turning over her emails when FOIA'd for them." I've read that Comey thought the investigation was going to be wrapped up by October last year. Seems like they then found something else that triggered a much longer investigation.

The most popular speculation about this for a long time now has been that it's the Clinton Foundation and the use of it to funnel money to Clinton and do pay-for-favors around the world. Her email server was a Clinton Foundation server so there'd have been other CF emails on that server too that might have said something bad. The other thing it might be is election fraud: Several of the democratic primaries had significant mismatches between exit polls [which are the most reliable type of poll] and final vote tallies, always in Clinton's favor, so if the FBI found emails about rigging elections they may have let the elections play out so they could catch people in the act of rigging them. If I were FBI director Comey, and were planning an election-fraud sting, I'd have made sure I bumped into Bernie Sanders and said "whatever you do, stay in the race until the end"... Sanders certainly has done so.

The only way I can see of interpreting the FBI's court filings is that they have managed to recover ALL of Clinton's emails, but they believe that saying that will either (a) prematurely warn Clinton that they know about the crimes she discusses in very old emails that she believes are forever deleted, or (b) prematurely warn someone else (probably in the Clinton Foundation, eg Bill Clinton) that their emails are also in FBI hands because they'll know the FBI managed to get all the emails off the CF server. We learned earlier that the Clintons had sent directives to their emailing-hosting company to delete backups, which the employees in that company found suspicious and were concerned they might be caught up in illegal activities. So probably what the FBI is trying not to reveal is that they have all of those old emails, and thus have full knowledge of whatever crimes are discussed in them.

And while Clinton has long promised to make herself available for an FBI interview, apparently her lawyers have actually been telling the FBI the opposite.

[seanD]

My my. A lot of that is some pretty hefty conspiracy theory stuff. If true, how does that not back up my argument that the right has been going after Hillary since the 90s not because of just political bias, but because the woman is a downright political Tony Soprano lol?

[MaxVel]

Trump may well end up in prison for blatant and deliberate fraud, but not Clinton. Her misdemeanour's (if ruled as such) can only be seen inadvertent errors of judgement, not criminal activity.

{from the Trump University fraud thread}

[Starlight]

If true, how does that not back up my argument that the right has been going after Hillary since the 90s not because of just political bias, but because the woman is a downright political Tony Soprano lol?

The right has tended to go after Hillary since the 90s for things that were obviously utterly ridiculous (eg Benghazi) every bit as much as they have gone after her for valid things (eg the emails), and thus have proven that they just hate the Clintons and aren't particularly interested in facts.

Yes, the Clintons have probably set new records in US politics for power-brokering of favors, and yes the Clinton Foundation extending that to international donors probably breaks previous records for corruption. Yes, they have a tendency to operate on the fine line between legal and illegal when doing this, bolstered by expensive lawyers who help them find ways to make their actions legal. Yes, they have well-established tendency to surround themselves with yes-men, who cater to their every whim and help them do that power-brokering and those favors. Yes, they have a tendency to clam-up tight and do their best to obstruct investigations into their activities.

As such, they are everything I hate about corrupt politicians, and I would never vote for them. But the US right has gone very astray at times with the Clintons when they have tried to get the Clintons for other things. Like supposedly killing Vince Foster, like Benghazi, etc. And wasting everyone's time just because B.J. Clinton got a BJ. And the US right is hardly in a position to go after the Clintons for political corruption - that would be like the pot calling the kettle black - the Republican party is the party of corruption. The Republican party basically invented the game of corruption (hence I would never vote Republican), and if the Clintons happen to be playing it better than them, crying foul is somewhat hypocritical. (Not that being hypocritical has stopped Republicans in the past - most of the leaders of the Republican party who were trying to impeach Bill for sex, themselves had sex scandals they were hiding at the time)

[seanD]

The right has tended to go after Hillary since the 90s for things that were obviously utterly ridiculous (eg Benghazi) every bit as much as they have gone after her for valid things (eg the emails), and thus have proven that they just hate the Clintons and aren't particularly interested in facts.

That doesn't at all logically follow what you posted in #198. If even two thirds of what you posted is true, then I have no problem believing the conspiratorial allegations that surround Benghazi. Supposedly covering up illegal arms trading to terrorist rebels from Libya into Syria is downright tame in comparison to using a foundation to receive bribes in exchange of foreign favors around the world and national election fraud. I mean, come on. And I've always argued that the Reps backed down because of their own corruption and culpability in Hillary's crimes.

[One Bad Pig]

The other thing it might be is election fraud: Several of the democratic primaries had significant mismatches between exit polls [which are the most reliable type of poll] and final vote tallies, always in Clinton's favor, so if the FBI found emails about rigging elections they may have let the elections play out so they could catch people in the act of rigging them. If I were FBI director Comey, and were planning an election-fraud sting, I'd have made sure I bumped into Bernie Sanders and said "whatever you do, stay in the race until the end"... Sanders certainly has done so.

This is conspiracy theory wackiness. The server hasn't even been in use this election cycle.

[JimL]

The right has tended to go after Hillary since the 90s for things that were obviously utterly ridiculous (eg Benghazi) every bit as much as they have gone after her for valid things (eg the emails), and thus have proven that they just hate the Clintons and aren't particularly interested in facts.

Yes, the Clintons have probably set new records in US politics for power-brokering of favors, and yes the Clinton Foundation extending that to international donors probably breaks previous records for corruption. Yes, they have a tendency to operate on the fine line between legal and illegal when doing this, bolstered by expensive lawyers who help them find ways to make their actions legal. Yes, they have well-established tendency to surround themselves with yes-men, who cater to their every whim and help them do that power-brokering and those favors. Yes, they have a tendency to clam-up tight and do their best to obstruct investigations into their activities.

As such, they are everything I hate about corrupt politicians, and I would never vote for them. But the US right has gone very astray at times with the Clintons when they have tried to get the Clintons for other things. Like supposedly killing Vince Foster, like Benghazi, etc. And wasting everyone's time just because B.J. Clinton got a BJ. And the US right is hardly in a position to go after the Clintons for political corruption - that would be like the pot calling the kettle black - the Republican party is the party of corruption. The Republican party basically invented the game of corruption (hence I would never vote Republican), and if the Clintons happen to be playing it better than them, crying foul is somewhat hypocritical. (Not that being hypocritical has stopped Republicans in the past - most of the leaders of the Republican party who were trying to impeach Bill for sex, themselves had sex scandals they were hiding at the time)

Not voting for Clinton is another vote for Trump. There have been many serious accussations of corruption against the Clintons but i've yet to see one stick accept in the minds of many voters, which of course is the point. The system itself is corrupt which is one of the main reasons why I voted for Sanders, but if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump then voting for Hillary is a no-brainer.

[seanD]

Not voting for Clinton is another vote for Trump. There have been many serious accussations of corruption against the Clintons but i've yet to see one stick accept in the minds of many voters, which of course is the point. The system itself is corrupt which is one of the main reasons why I voted for Sanders, but if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump then voting for Hillary is a no-brainer.

You realize that there is a good possibility Hillary will be more of a warmonger than Trump, and most likely more (if not equally) corporate friendly?

[rogue06]

The Wall Street Journal broke the story last week that some of Hillary's e-mails discussed planned drone strikes in Pakistan which nobody could possibly not realize was classified information.

On NBC's Today show Chuck Todd, the host of Meet the Press, seemed to admit that the media has so far ignored the story because of their obsession with controversies surrounding Donald Trump:

"You know, 10 days ago is when the [Inspector General] report came out on e-mails. The last ten days could have been about nothing but e-mails, nothing but negatives about Hillary Clinton. We could be talking about Democratic hand-wringing, but there's Donald Trump. Enough said."

Looking at the MSM's history I'm sure that they would have found something else to focus on until they were finally dragged kicking and screaming to covering the story all the time insisting that it was either "old news" or not important. Kind of like how just a day later Kevin Drum, a pundit with the far left Mother Jones was insisting that all of the scandals that surround Hillary are nothing more than "inventions" of "well-heeled conservative cranks" that a "far too often a gullible and compliant press" report on.

[eider]

A well known (but unknown to me) US Republican journalist was on BBC telly today, moaning about Democrats and Hillary Clinton. The interviewer asked this guy straight, 'Do you want Donald Trump to win?'

This journalist said something like, 'I'm not being drawn intyo answering that!'

It seems like the right is swinging to the left......

[JimL]

You realize that there is a good possibility Hillary will be more of a warmonger than Trump, and most likely more (if not equally) corporate friendly?

Hillary at least has a brain and will work with our allies and deliberate on the best course of action in specific situations whether in the end she follows the right path or not. Trump has already shown himself to be an idiot when it comes to foriegn affairs, including the spread of nuclear weapons. He has already stated that he is going to utterly destroy Isis, which of course means going to war, sending in the ground troops, so i don't know how you figure Hillary will be more of a war monger than Trump.

[Cow Poke]

Not voting for Clinton is another vote for Trump.

Dear Mr. L, you say that like it's a bad thing. How are you this fine Sunday afternoon?

There have been many serious accussations of corruption against the Clintons but i've yet to see one stick accept in the minds of many voters, which of course is the point.

The FBI doesn't just investigate "accusations of corruption". And, until we hear otherwise, the investigation is ongoing. She is under Federal Investigation.

The system itself is corrupt which is one of the main reasons why I voted for Sanders, but if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump then voting for Hillary is a no-brainer.

I guess I'm on the "ABH" train, which leaves me holding my nose and voting for Trump.

[Terraceth]

And wasting everyone's time just because B.J. Clinton got a BJ.

It wasn't about whether he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. It was about the fact he repeatedly claimed he didn't when he actually did, and did so under oath no less. If he had just admitted it from the start then there would've been some bad PR (less than what ended up happened, though), but it sure as heck wouldn't have gone to the actual impeachment process.

(Not that being hypocritical has stopped Republicans in the past - most of the leaders of the Republican party who were trying to impeach Bill for sex, themselves had sex scandals they were hiding at the time)

Again, the impeachment was not for the sex, but for the perjury and obstruction of justice that came from him denying it.