The Hillary Clinton thread

[Max Peck]

The only scandal is that no one inside the administration reported Hillary or forced her to comply with policy.

According to the IG report, working-level personnel at State did try to flag the server as being against policy, but they were shut down by their own management, who told them that it had been approved by the legal department.

[hepcat]

Don't be a liar. I know you and I happen to know you're posting from prison.

The love he and King Gorilla share is not something you should make light of.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Don't be a liar. I know you and I happen to know you're posting from prison.

You raise a valid point; it is contrary to reason to imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to reside in a hellmouth like New Jersey.

[gbasden]

Don't be a liar. I know you and I happen to know you're posting from prison.

You raise a valid point; it is contrary to reason to imagine anyone voluntarily choosing to reside in a hellmouth like New Jersey.

Fair point.

[YellowKing]

For me the email thing and the Benghazi thing have ceased to be a source of fuel for my fiery hatred of Hillary. It's old news, nothing's coming from it, nothing probably will come from it, so let's just move on. If 8 years of Billary in the White House didn't convince you that those jokers wallow in scandal and still come out unscathed, then I don't know what to tell you. It's not going to change.

The real issue here is that we have two really bad choices for President. Ultimately, however, one has served as Secretary of State and First Lady. The other has no political experience, but has managed to own a bunch of real estate. One hasn't shown any signs of being a racist, the other makes it a nearly daily occurrence. One seems unflappable in the face of constant attack, the other one gets his panties in a wad if someone looks at him wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

[RunningMn9]

And the best part? This is somehow all Obama's fault.

[Smoove_B]

Don't be a liar. I know you and I happen to know you're posting from prison.

The love he and King Gorilla share is not something you should make light of.

There! I just sold you for a cigarette! And I don't smoke!

[msteelers]

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

Agreed 100%.

I think almost any other Republican would win this year in a landslide. Very few people actually want to vote for Hillary. Rubio and Kasich would have won in a landslide. Cruz would have likely won, but I think it would have been close.

[Fitzy]

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

Agreed 100%.

I think almost any other Republican would win this year in a landslide. Very few people actually want to vote for Hillary. Rubio and Kasich would have won in a landslide. Cruz would have likely won, but I think it would have been close.

I think the other way is true too. Can you imagine a charismatic Democrat (not a socialist) running against trump? Obama v Trump? It would have had the potential to change the political landscape.

In some ways this isn't her fault. She's been turned into such a monster by the right, I don't see how she can crush Trump as much as he deserves. She'll be a good president. But it will be 8 years of Congressional investigations that make the current Republican Congress seem reasonable.

[Jaymann]

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

Agreed 100%.

I think almost any other Republican would win this year in a landslide. Very few people actually want to vote for Hillary. Rubio and Kasich would have won in a landslide. Cruz would have likely won, but I think it would have been close.

I think the other way is true too. Can you imagine a charismatic Democrat (not a socialist) running against trump? Obama v Trump? It would have had the potential to change the political landscape.

In some ways this isn't her fault. She's been turned into such a monster by the right, I don't see how she can crush Trump as much as he deserves. She'll be a good president. But it will be 8 years of Congressional investigations that make the current Republican Congress seem reasonable.

Hey for all we know she could end up on Mount Rushmore.

[Pyperkub]

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

Agreed 100%.

I think almost any other Republican would win this year in a landslide. Very few people actually want to vote for Hillary. Rubio and Kasich would have won in a landslide. Cruz would have likely won, but I think it would have been close.

Except of course, any who actually ran, all of their candidates were the type who have been screwing the majority of GOP voters for decades.

[Rip]

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

Agreed 100%.

I think almost any other Republican would win this year in a landslide. Very few people actually want to vote for Hillary. Rubio and Kasich would have won in a landslide. Cruz would have likely won, but I think it would have been close.

Except of course, any who actually ran, all of their candidates were the type who have been screwing the majority of GOP voters for decades.

This. I had hoped Rand Paul would get the disgust vote but Trump got it instead.

I thought the Palin decision was just that a bad decision, but it appears that they just don't have anyone worth a crap. Just a bunch of old school back seat driving hypocrites, like Romney. Wish that blowhard would shut up already. No matter how bad Trump does he couldn't do any worse than that useless windbag did.

[hepcat]

I thought the Palin decision was just that a bad decision, but it appears that they just don't have anyone worth a crap. Just a bunch of old school back seat driving hypocrites, like Romney. Wish that blowhard would shut up already. No matter how bad Trump does he couldn't do any worse than that useless windbag did.

I'm pretty sure Trump can...and will.

[Holman]

The simple fact of the matter is that had the Republicans put up a good candidate, this election should have been a cakewalk. Hillary Clinton is a dream opponent. Throw a dart and pick a scandal. But they couldn't do it. So now what you're going to see is an utter shit storm of attacks to deflect attention from the fact that Trump is a terrible candidate. It's probably going to be the ugliest, most shameful election of my lifetime.

Agreed 100%.

I think almost any other Republican would win this year in a landslide. Very few people actually want to vote for Hillary. Rubio and Kasich would have won in a landslide. Cruz would have likely won, but I think it would have been close.

I think the other way is true too. Can you imagine a charismatic Democrat (not a socialist) running against trump? Obama v Trump? It would have had the potential to change the political landscape.

In some ways this isn't her fault. She's been turned into such a monster by the right, I don't see how she can crush Trump as much as he deserves. She'll be a good president. But it will be 8 years of Congressional investigations that make the current Republican Congress seem reasonable.

It's possible that they're getting Trump because the Dems are running Clinton.

Clinton has been the odds-on favorite for the nomination for four years now. The GOP has known all along they would be facing her. Conventional wisdom is that they should have chosen a moderate-seeming Jeb or Rubio to make things palatable to the middle. A party in half-decent array would have taken this safe path by Christmas.

Instead, what happened? After 8 years of Obama, they couldn't settle for a simple turn but had to pick the most Obama-phobic, conspiracy-minded option available. What's more, faced not only with the first female major-party candidate but with the woman they've been trained to despise for 25 years as the arch-Feminazi Democrat of modern times, they chose a candidate dredged from depths of misogyny, racism, and social backwardness unreachable by anyone without Trump's levels of arrogant belligerence.

The id finds a way.

[Max Peck]

So, how do you feel about Hillary Clinton as your new Big Sister?

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said on Monday that if elected, she would pressure U.S. technology companies to help intelligence agencies disrupt violent plots after a gunman inspired by radical Islamist groups killed 49 people in an Orlando nightclub. In a speech in Cleveland, she articulated plans for expanded online surveillance of potential extremist attackers. She is campaigning against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of the November presidential election.

"We already know we need more resources for this fight. The professionals who keep us safe would be the first to say we need better intelligence to discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out," Clinton said. "That’s why I’ve proposed an ‘intelligence surge’ to bolster our capabilities across the board, with appropriate safeguards here at home." While Clinton did not detail what her effort would entail, she said she wants technology companies to be more cooperative to government requests for help in countering online propaganda, tracking patterns in social media and intercepting communications.

[gilraen]

So, how do you feel about Hillary Clinton as your new Big Sister?

Lots of people feel very strongly about this. I just...don't care. If someone wants to listen in on my phone conversations or read the hundreds of spam messages that come into my email every day, go right ahead. Try not to die of boredom.

[Pyperkub]

So, how do you feel about Hillary Clinton as your new Big Sister?

Lots of people feel very strongly about this. I just...don't care. If someone wants to listen in on my phone conversations or read the hundreds of spam messages that come into my email every day, go right ahead. Try not to die of boredom.

I don't want it going to insurance companies, and I think that data taken from in home and medical devices needs to be subject to privacy rules like HIPPA. I also really don't like it because even the poor protections afforded whistle blowers will be rendered useless and it is likely to create many more opportunities for corrupt people in power to do more harm with less chances of getting caught.

As to tech companies helping, I'm OK with it, as long as as it isn't about weakening encryption.

And I think Trump will use the information in far more unamerican ways than Clinton.

[Chaz]

That's the problem right there. It sets a precedent that I'd really rather not be set. You might be comfortable that the person currently at the wheel will only use these new powers for good, but those powers stay there after the next election cycle, and there's no guarantee the next person in charge won't mi-use them.

[El Guapo]

That's the problem right there. It sets a precedent that I'd really rather not be set. You might be comfortable that the person currently at the wheel will only use these new powers for good, but those powers stay there after the next election cycle, and there's no guarantee the next person in charge won't mi-use them.

Don't worry though - she said right there that there would be "appropriate safeguards." No reason to worry!

[YellowKing]

The problem with pointing out issues with Hillary's policies is that the alternative sounds 10x worse. I don't particularly like the government flexing its muscles to force tech companies to turn over intelligence. But I REALLY don't like the idea of censoring the press and building walls to keep goddamn filthy foreigners off our 'Murrican soil.

[El Guapo]

The problem with pointing out issues with Hillary's policies is that the alternative sounds 10x worse. I don't particularly like the government flexing its muscles to force tech companies to turn over intelligence. But I REALLY don't like the idea of censoring the press and building walls to keep goddamn filthy foreigners off our 'Murrican soil.

This is separate from the question of Hillary vs. Trump, this is just whether what Hillary is proposing is a good idea or not, in a vacuum.

Of course, one of the problems with one of the major parties in a two-party system going insane is that it reduces the constraints on the non-insane major party as well.

[Defiant]

I want to know the details. Will these be warrantless or will they require warrants? What privacy protections will be in place? etc. Do it right, and I could go along with it.

[Isgrimnur]

Warrants don't matter:

...Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.

[Kurth]

That's the problem right there. It sets a precedent that I'd really rather not be set. You might be comfortable that the person currently at the wheel will only use these new powers for good, but those powers stay there after the next election cycle, and there's no guarantee the next person in charge won't mi-use them.

This, 100%.

It drives me nuts when I hear people say they don't care about increased government surveillance because "they have nothing to hide." That's so damn subjective. You may feel that nothing in your life would put a target on your back, but you aren't the one deciding where the targets go. And even if you believe our government is made up of people with generally good intentions (which I do), what about the next government?

I believe our constition is a living, breathing document flexible enough to adapt to changing times and changing situations, but there are core principles that need to be safeguarded. Individual liberty cannot coexist without personal privacy.

[Max Peck]

Warrants don't matter:

...Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.

Maybe the DoJ is just really, really, really good at colouring between the lines. If they don't overreach, there would be no reason to deny the warrants, amirite?

It could happen...

[RunningMn9]

The problem with pointing out issues with Hillary's policies is that the alternative sounds 10x worse. I don't particularly like the government flexing its muscles to force tech companies to turn over intelligence. But I REALLY don't like the idea of censoring the press and building walls to keep goddamn filthy foreigners off our 'Murrican soil.

I find it easier to just oppose all of these instances of appearing to do something.

[Kurth]

Warrants don't matter:

...Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.

Regarding the FISA courts and their low rejection rate of surveillance requests, those figures are misleading since they are only taking into account rejections of final applications. What those figures don't reflect is that a much larger percentage of applications are significantly modified/revamped during the process. At a Federal Bar Association meeting last year, I listened to a great panel discussion which included a present FISA court judge, a past FISA court judge, and several critics of the whole FISA court system. There were some great points raised, but one take-away was that the "rubber stamp" accusation is really overblown. More details on this are available all over the place, including on wikipedia:

The accusation of being a "rubber stamp" was rejected by FISA Court president Reggie B. Walton who wrote in a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy: "The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General [...] - frequently cited to in press reports as a suggestion that the Court's approval rate of application is over 99% - reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the Court. These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered to prior or final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them."[17] He added: "There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts and then by the judges, to ensure that the court’s authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize."[18] In a follow letter Walton stated that the government had revamped 24.4% of its requests in the face of court questions and demands in time from July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013.[19][20][21] This figure became available after Walton decided in the summer of 2013 that the FISC would begin keeping its own tally of how Justice Department warrant applications for electronic surveillance fared — and would track for the first time when the government withdrew or resubmitted those applications with changes.[21] Some requests are modified by the court but ultimately granted, while the percentage of denied requests is statistically negligible (11 denied requests out of around 34,000 granted in 35 years – equivalent to 0.03 percent).[7][16][22][23] The accusation that the FISC is a "rubber stamp" court was also rejected by Robert S. Litt (General Counsel of Office of the Director of National Intelligence): "When [the Government] prepares an application for [a section 215 order, it] first submit to the [FISC] what's called a "read copy," which the court staff will review and comment on. [A]nd they will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems that they see. And there is an iterative process back and forth between the Government and the [FISC] to take care of those concerns so that at the end of the day, we're confident that we're presenting something that the [FISC] will approve. That is hardly a rubber stamp. It's rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process."[24]

The FISA court system is no where near ideal, but I think the "rubber stamp" criticism is somewhat off base.

[Isgrimnur]

Fair enough. As with most things, detailed rebuttals get buried, while the sensationalist headlines stick around forever.

My concern, then, is why is law enforcement still seeking expansion of their warrantless search privileges?

[Kraken]

That's the problem right there. It sets a precedent that I'd really rather not be set. You might be comfortable that the person currently at the wheel will only use these new powers for good, but those powers stay there after the next election cycle, and there's no guarantee the next person in charge won't mi-use them.

Don't worry though - she said right there that there would be "appropriate safeguards." No reason to worry!

The data will reside on a server in her basement.

[PLW]

Warrants don't matter:

...Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which was created in 1979 to oversee Department of Justice requests for surveillance warrants against foreign agents suspected of espionage or terrorism in the United States. But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.

This doesn't mean warrants don't matter. We' need to know how many searches that (would have) required warrants would have been made if warrants weren't required.

[GreenGoo]

So if I understand correctly, a lot of requests end with no warrant being issued during the entirety of the process. Ok, I get that.

Are the stats available that cover how many requests are initiated versus how many requests get approved?

[Isgrimnur]

2014 Report (PDF)

1,416 requests.

1,379 for electronic surveillance, none of these withdrawn, 19 revised by FISC.

170 business records requests, none denied, 4 revised by FISC.

None were denied.

[GreenGoo]

Ah. That's totally different than the narrative being portrayed in the media, then.



Kurth, do you have an opinion on this? Besides 2014 is only a single year out of 33 and possibly an outlier, I guess.

Does it really matter that it's an iterative process if the end result is always granting a warrant? I mean, sure, it might put limits that the NSA would prefer not to be there, but that an NSA request is never rejected at all (statistically close enough) seems suspect. These are the same guys listening in on domestic phone calls and generally looking into data streams on the internet.

They don't seem like they're the kind of people who would work hard to get all their ducks in a row.

[Max Peck]

Ah. That's totally different than the narrative being portrayed in the media, then.



Kurth, do you have an opinion on this? Besides 2014 is only a single year out of 33 and possibly an outlier, I guess.

Does it really matter that it's an iterative process if the end result is always granting a warrant? I mean, sure, it might put limits that the NSA would prefer not to be there, but that an NSA request is never rejected at all (statistically close enough) seems suspect. These are the same guys listening in on domestic phone calls and generally looking into data streams on the internet.

They don't seem like they're the kind of people who would work hard to get all their ducks in a row.

Why would you assume that an agency that has hackers that allegedly can hack the world wouldn't have lawyers that can competently lawyer? They probably have a big enough budget for both.

I only skimmed through the report that Isgrimnur linked, but it only seems to describe what transpired at the interface between the agencies and the court. An important part of the picture that is missing is the internal processes that a warrant application goes through before it is even submitted to the court. If weak or inadequate requests are quashed or sent back for revision before they leave the agency in question, then the statistics don't look all that unreasonable. If anything, if the court was not acting in good faith, I'd expect them to manufacture more reassuring statistics. While it is certainly possible that the court is just rubber stamping applications, it is just as plausible that the agencies involved simply have legal departments that make sure that the i's are dotted, the t's crossed and the necessary criteria satisfied before the paperwork leaves the agency.

[GreenGoo]

Not really.

I think Snowden's documents alone make that assumption highly dubious.

[LordMortis]

2014 Report (PDF)

1,416 requests.

1,379 for electronic surveillance, none of these withdrawn, 19 revised by FISC.

170 business records requests, none denied, 4 revised by FISC.

None were denied.

I'm not smart or knowledgeable to make a judgement on that. 5 requests a day doesn't seem like a whole hell of a lot in the scheme of things (though I don't know how broad those requests were) so at surface glance the suggestion to me is they only asked when they really needed to and were sure to get a yes. But that's just ignorant speculation. I would hate to think Justice needs to show they are working by rejecting warrants just to show they can reject warrants. That's as much the stuff of Kafka as would their existing solely as rubber stamp for a foregone conclusion.

[Isgrimnur]

Also from that document, the FBI issued 12,452 National Security Letter requests. Warrant not required.

[Max Peck]

Not really.

I think Snowden's documents alone make that assumption highly dubious.

I'm not familiar with the specific documents to which you refer. Can you provide citations, or is this one of those "common knowledge" dealios where one accepts a proposition on faith alone?

Also from that document, the FBI issued 12,452 National Security Letter requests. Warrant not required.

Which is a separate issue. I'm just questioning basic assumptions being made about why the court didn't deny even one warrant that year. If the only defense for a preconceived position is "Because Snowden!" then the proposition seems weak to me.

Note that I do not claim that there are no shenanigans involved in the process overall, just that the lack of denied warrants does not appear, to me, to be proof of shenanigans (or the lack thereof). I absolutely do believe that the warrants were vetted by government lawyers before being submitted to a judge (Seriously, in what bureaucracy is the Prime Directive not "Cover thine ass!"? Although, sometimes "Never say no to the boss" does give it a run for the money.), but I have no opinion as to whether or not those lawyers saw it as their job simply to ensure that the applications were massaged so that they would pass scrutiny. I have no knowledge of the health, or lack thereof, of the corporate culture in which they toil, and I don't have access to an audit of their internal review processes to see, for example, what portion of incipient requests progress all the way from being a gleam in Johnny Technospook's eye to being a full-fledged warrant submission.

TLDR: The report, taken in isolation, doesn't strike me as providing compelling evidence for the prescence or absence of bad faith in the judicial oversight process; I need more information to form what I would consider to be an informed opinion. YMMV. I really like parenthetical interjections (It's a stream-of-consciousness writing style thing (I'm doing it again, aren't I?).).

[Isgrimnur]

The statistics, on their own, are useless. Democratic bureaucracies should have a default position of proving that they're doing things properly, not have the people operate under the assumption that, because we can't prove that they're doing something wrong, everything must be fine. Especially when any evidence of them doing something wrong is tightly controlled by that same bureaucracy.

[GreenGoo]

Not really.

I think Snowden's documents alone make that assumption highly dubious.

I'm not familiar with the specific documents to which you refer. Can you provide citations, or is this one of those "common knowledge" dealios where one accepts a proposition on faith alone?

This is one of those "well, they lied about a whole buncha evidence backed stuff, including things that were in they claimed were in the public interest but *this* time we should assume they are honest and competent" things.

Perhaps I'm not as optimistic as you are. Since you are adverse to trusting things on faith, why on earth would you take the word of law enforcement agencies, or their overseer which has seen fit to only reject a tiny percentage of those agencies requests?

Your supposition that they are simply incredibly ultra law abiding seems...full of faith.