The Hillary Clinton thread

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:43 am

I'm beginning to suspect that MSD is actually the perfect Trump supporter, he's just not aware of it yet.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:02 am

A) The e-mail event is under active investigation.
B) Compare and contrast with General Petraeus, who directly provided classified information to his civilian biographer, with whom he was sleeping, and ended up with a deal to plead guilt to one misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information, while the biographer received no charges.

But please, continue to tell us how it's the Clinton name that gets her preferential treatment, and not the corruption of power and influence in a general sense.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:07 am

What organization doesn't cater to its CEO with exceptions and special treatment?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:19 pm

Zarathud wrote:What organization doesn't cater to its CEO with exceptions and special treatment?

Concurred. I also understand that you can't always let policy get in the way of getting the job done. However, when it comes to confidentiality the nature of the game changes. We need to wait for the FBI and Justice to do their jobs. What's not right, is if they don't finish before November and she becomes their boss. What's terrifying is if they do finish before November and an ugly truth comes out.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:48 pm

What terrifying truth are you expecting?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:52 pm

hepcat wrote:What terrifying truth are you expecting?

That Hillary died a few days ago, and that the Hillary we've been seeing is Bill in drag trying to win his old job back (Think about it have you seen them together recently? No, cause "they've" supposedly been "campaigning" in different locations). And when that gets revealed, Bill will have to drop out, because he's not eligible.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:57 pm

hepcat wrote:What terrifying truth are you expecting?

I'm not expecting anything but what is terrifying is that if investigation is completed and the truth leads to her being indicted for felonious mishandling of classified information coming up on the general election.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:19 pm

raydude wrote:
msduncan wrote:I'll just point out here that my wife, who isn't a Clinton, would already have been jailed if she publicly shared some of the email that goes by her desk. She'd probably avoid long jail sentences, but she'd definitely be cuffed and spend a bit of time in the lockup. Now, on the other hand, if she went to work and set up an external email server to put all of those government emails on -- the feds would not be NEARLY as lenient.

However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch, apparently the rules are different than for us working class peasants. That's all I'm saying. Pretty much think that lines up with what Trump said about her going to jail.
Interesting that you mention wife and bitch in the same post. As an exercise in empathy, imagine how you would feel if someone associated the adjective with your wife instead.

My wife's not a bitch, and she's also not a public figure with special legal privileges.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:01 pm

Clinton gave a very good speech, and one that, I think, reached out to Sanders supporters.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:09 pm

In case anyone cares what NJ looks like with 95% of the voting counted. We are a closed primary state.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:28 pm

It's all about California tonight. If Clinton wins California (which she probably will), especially if it's by a significant margin (possible, though less likely), then Sanders will face more pressure to concede sooner rather than later. If he wins California, god knows what will happen then.

Early results look promising for Clinton, especially in California (she may also win SD apparently, which is unexpected), but it is still early.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:36 pm

Smoove_B wrote:In case anyone cares what NJ looks like with 95% of the voting counted. We are a closed primary state.

Actually, only partly. People affiliated with a different party can't vote, but people who aren't can.

A registered voter currently not affiliated with a political party may declare their party affiliation up to and including Primary Election day.

link

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:08 am

After seeing a few minutes from tonight it left me wondering if Hillary's friends in the media are using these camera lenses on her? http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-26/ ... ws-anchors

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:01 am

Clinton has won California. Per the NYT, with 94% reporting Clinton's at 56.1% to Sanders 43%, which is a pretty solid margin.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:08 pm

And now the celebrity endorsements roll in....

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:34 am

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/k ... ton-223646

Saucier’s friends, conservative commentators and others say the stiff charges leveled against Saucier were out of whack with more lenient treatment given to senior officials who face allegations of mishandling classified information, like Clinton.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what she did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”

Clinton has not been charged with any crime, but the FBI has been investigating how information that intelligence agencies consider classified wound up on the private server that hosted her only email account during the four years she served as secretary of state. Some news reports have said charges are unlikely.

“Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” said Edward MacMahon, a Virginia defense attorney not involved in the Saucier case.
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.

By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.

Still, it’s far from obvious that the information Saucier took photos of is more sensitive than information found in Clinton’s account. Court filings say the photos were clear enough that they reveal classified details about the submarine that could be of use to foreign governments, such as the vessel’s maximum speed.

However, the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.

Intelligence agencies claim that Clinton’s account contained 65 messages with information considered “Secret” and 22 classified at the “Top Secret” level. Some messages contained data under an even more restrictive “special access program” designation.
Clinton and her campaign have disputed those findings, calling them a result of “overclassification” and urging that the messages be released in full.

However, Clinton’s critics and some former intelligence officials said she should have recognized the sensitivity of the information. They’ve also noted that about 32,000 messages on Clinton’s server were erased after her lawyers deemed them personal.

“The DOJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote last year. “Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop?”

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:03 am

Will she go for it?

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has considered the idea of serving as Hillary Clinton's running mate but sees obstacles to that choice as she prepares to endorse the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, several people familiar with Warren's thinking told Reuters. While her thinking could evolve, Warren has concerns about joining a Clinton ticket, including the question of whether running two women would give the Democrats the best shot at defeating Republican Donald Trump, one source said.

Advisers to Warren, a fiery critic of Wall Street and a popular figure among progressive Democrats, have been in close contact with Clinton's campaign team and the conversations have increased in frequency in recent weeks, the sources said. Warren has signaled to people close to her that she is intrigued by the possibility of being Clinton's No. 2 but has not discussed the role with Clinton, 68, or anyone else from her campaign, the people said.

Warren, 66, has been one of the Democrats' most outspoken critics of Trump, 69, and her priority is helping to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 presidential election, the sources said. Warren is also committed to advancing her own political agenda, which they described as “more progressive” than Clinton’s more centrist positions. Warren fears that as vice president, or in a cabinet position, her voice could be less heard than it is in the U.S. Senate on her priority issues such as addressing income inequality, the sources said. In the past, Warren has accused Clinton of abandoning her support for stronger bankruptcy legislation to try to appease Wall Street.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:04 am

Rip wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/k ... ton-223646

Wait...are you now saying that Hillary snuck onto a nuclear sub and took photos for our enemies? She's like Agent 47 or Garrett, man! I actually feel better about voting for her now!

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:22 pm

Also, re: Warren as VP, I just looked it up, and in the Massachusetts statehouse democrats control 133 out of 160 seats in the House, and 33 out of 38 seats in the Senate. Couldn't they just rewrite the procedure for replacing a senator? I wonder if there's anything keeping them from changing the rules so that the legislature picks the replacement senator.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:56 pm

El Guapo wrote:Also, re: Warren as VP, I just looked it up, and in the Massachusetts statehouse democrats control 133 out of 160 seats in the House, and 33 out of 38 seats in the Senate. Couldn't they just rewrite the procedure for replacing a senator? I wonder if there's anything keeping them from changing the rules so that the legislature picks the replacement senator.

Harry Reid is a step ahead of you

The upshot of Reid’s review is that Senate Democrats may have found an avenue to block or at least narrow GOP Governor Charlie Baker’s ability to name a temporary replacement and prevent the Senate from flipping to a Democratic majority if Warren were to leave the chamber. That suggests the issue is not as significant an obstacle as Reid previously feared.

Pieces of the legal guidance given to Reid were shared with the Globe by a person close to Reid who is familiar with the guidance.

“Reid sees a number of promising paths to making sure that Democrats keep Warren’s seat and is very open to her being selected,” said this person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Personally, I don't want to lose her as our senator, and I'm betting that Warren will see that Clinton gains a whole lot more than she does as VP.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:23 pm

Kraken wrote:
Personally, I don't want to lose her as our senator, and I'm betting that Warren will see that Clinton gains a whole lot more than she does as VP.

Depends. I am inclined to think that Warren being on the ticket would substantially boost Clinton's chances of victory. If she agrees, I imagine that might sway Warren.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:39 pm

Oh, it's on now.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:48 pm

I'm not trying to channel my inner Rip with this, but does anyone else find this press release photo for Hillary as creepy as I?

It looks like her head is attached to the wrong body.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:49 pm

Yep, it also feels like her head is the wrong size.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:59 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Yep, it also feels like her head is the wrong size.

You're just not used to seeing a politician with proportional hands.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:59 pm

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:43 pm

Photoshop!

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:45 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:Oh, it's on now.

Google now tells me that "delete your account" is a meme?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:05 pm

I don't think this was linked before, but whether you like Clinton or don't, this profile in New York magazine is really worth reading.

(I have to admit that I'm pushing it because while I don't know the author, I know her brother and her father. But the piece has been getting a lot of attention, and I just saw it referenced again today.)

Anonymous Bosch · Post by **Anonymous Bosch** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:15 pm

Holman wrote:I don't think this was linked before, but whether you like Clinton or don't, this profile in New York magazine is really worth reading.

Does it cover the fact that Hillary Clinton is an undeniably venal sack of balloon juice, whose Trump nickname ought to be "Bad Grandma"?

Otherwise, colour me apathetic.

PLW · Post by **PLW** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:32 pm

I think the profile was a little too positive. It tried to explain the weakness of her campaign/candidacy as bad rhetoric or over zealous desire for privacy, without addressing any of the underlying problems. She has made some bad policy decisions, including in failing to ensure adequate security in Benghazi and downplaying the terrorist links in its aftermath, and on handling classified email improperly. These are actual weaknesses, but the profile only talk about her reaction to then as weaknesses.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:05 pm

It's definitely a positive portrait, but not a fawning one.

Clinton is smart, committed, and successful, and the long caricature we've had from the Right can't account for any of that. The article tries to get at the strengths as well as (some of) the flaws. Such round perspective has been in short supply.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:44 pm

msduncan wrote:I'll just point out here that my wife, who isn't a Clinton, would already have been jailed if she publicly shared some of the email that goes by her desk. She'd probably avoid long jail sentences, but she'd definitely be cuffed and spend a bit of time in the lockup. Now, on the other hand, if she went to work and set up an external email server to put all of those government emails on -- the feds would not be NEARLY as lenient.

However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch, apparently the rules are different than for us working class peasants. That's all I'm saying. Pretty much think that lines up with what Trump said about her going to jail.

Or a bush, rove, etc, who didn't even get a slap on the wrist?

Better watch those double standards msd...

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:55 pm

So mention of Hillary's 'delete your account' tweet, and no mention of the great response?

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up--and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:23 am

msduncan wrote:So mention of Hillary's 'delete your account' tweet, and no mention of the great response?

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up--and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?

I would like to point out that at least her tweet was original (in this usage/context). He's flogging a very much dead horse. Yawn.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:52 am

True, she is pretty much a dead horse.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:13 am

Again, yawn. Wake me up when you have something new.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:09 am

I'll give them credit for rolling with the joke and turning it.

Reince Priebus needs a laugh, anyway. His job is to sell his soul piece by piece, day after day. He didn't sign up for Donald Trump, and now his whole career depends on delivering him the White House.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:33 am

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:28 am

Am I the only one perturbed that the potential next leaders of the free world are sniping back and forth on Twitter like a couple of 15-year olds? Some of us have to act like professionals in our jobs.