Hillary Clinton Running for President

[lisab]

But she has a pretty bad likability problem. Not just that people disagree with her, it is just that she is not , or at least does not appear to be , very likable. She needs to find a way of overcoming that.

Yeah that's probably part of it. And it's a shame people focus on it, but it's undeniably part of the calculus.

An aside: my mom used to work in a US Embassy in one of the -stans. Hillary came to visit when she was FLOTUS. My mom said she was so different with the cameras off! Personable and approachable, down-to-earth...just a very warm person. That doesn't come across in the media, for sure.

 

[Astronuc]

with the cameras off! Personable and approachable, down-to-earth...just a very warm person.

I had the same observation at a function at which she spoke. She seemed more relaxed and engaged warmly with members of the audience.

 

[jim hardy]

Deja Vu all over again ?

One CIA director John M Deutsch, just before pleading guilty to mishandling classified documents on his unclassified computer , was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day in office
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/john-m-deutch

NEWS
Deutch Was Close to Pleading Guilty
January 25, 2001 | From Times Wire Reports
Former CIA Director John M. Deutch agreed last Friday to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets, but President Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case against him, officials said. Deutch was among 176 people granted some form of clemency by Clinton hours before he left office.

exhaustive report here
fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html

Obama and the Clintons: Top Dems mingle on Martha's Vineyard

Fore!

 

[Astronuc]

It will be interesting to see if that happens in January 2017, if not sooner.

I have to wonder what Bill has been discussing with Barack.

 

[Astronuc]

Probe of Clinton's server could find more than just emails
http://news.yahoo.com/probe-clintons-server-could-more-just-emails-071945426--election.html

I would expect that there were attachments, but other files were stored on the server?

 

[Dotini]

In my humble mind, it seems obvious Hillary is being investigated by the DOJ in re storage of classified material on her personal computer server; criminal charges similar to those suffered by David Patraeus are certain to doom her candidacy. Accordingly, a Biden/Warren ticket is envisaged.

 

[russ_watters]

The scandal appears serious to me, but given that she's a Clinton, I wouldn't conclude she's out just yet.

 

[Astronuc]

Judge says Hillary Clinton's private emails violated policy
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ns-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html

 

[russ_watters]

[This topic may warrant its own thread]

Ordinarily a political activists' blog would not be an acceptable source on PF, but in this case, this is the primary source for the HC email scandal:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/tag/hillary-clinton-email-scandal/

Judicial Watch is a conservative activist organization who's mission statement focuses on judicial activism, but realistically has been mostly focused on government secrecy/openness. They broke the HC email scandal via filing Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits, starting with the Bengazigate scandal. Through that scandal, they discovered Hillary's personal email server and have been attacking the issue since. The link above contains their content from the scandal and some of it I find to be interesting information that hasn't yet been made "news".

For example, there are little tidbits, such as:
-The DOS did not provide her with a secure Blackberry.
-Two of Clinton's aids are included in the scandal. On Friday, Aug 7, Clinton issued a "status report" regarding compliance with an order to turn over emails, which stated that one was being instructed to destroy her emails:

1. Last week, on July 31, 2015, the Court ordered Defendant to take four specific actions and to update the Court on its compliance today. 2. Defendant filed its update a short time ago. 3. Although Defendant, Secretary Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Mills failed to provide nearly all of the information required by the Court’s order, this urgent response is to highlight one startling revelation. 4. By letter dated August 6, 2015, Ms. Mills’ attorney informed Defendant, “Following our production on August 10, 2015, we have instructed [Ms. Mills] to delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/08-07-15-JW-v-State-Response-013631.pdf
The court provided the requested "urgent response" (not wanting to wait until Monday) that day, ordering her not to destroy the emails.

In view of [20] the Government’s status report, the Court hereby directs the Government to request that Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills i) not delete any federal documents, electronic or otherwise, in their possession or control, and ii) provide appropriate assurances to the Government that the above-named individuals will not delete any such documents. The Government shall inform the Court of the status of its compliance with this Order no later than August 12, 2015, including a copy of any assurances provided by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills that they will not delete any federal documents in their possession or control. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 7, 2015.

All this is very technical/legalistic, but informs about the things going on in the background of the scandal. This one in particular, though, seems to me like it could provide a basis for obstruction of justice.

 

[russ_watters]

Condescending jokes didn't work, so now she's trying contrition:

"My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn't the best choice. I should have used two emails -- one personal, one for work -- and I take responsibility for that decision," she said when asked at an Iowa event.

The answer shows much more contrition than she has of late, even acknowledging that she understands why people care about the issue.

"Well, I know people have raised questions about my email use as secretary of state, and I understand why. I get it,"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/politics/hillary-clinton-iowa-rural-policy-2016/index.html

Anyone buying her sincerity?

 

[Bystander]

Anyone buying her sincerity?

 

[cellurl]

So, that she is not associated with astroturf is a positive for her. Ok, I agree, I like her and hope she wins, I can't think of anyone that is as qualified as she is.

I don't see the difference between Hillary possibly exposing TOP SECRET information in her emails and Edward Snowden exposing possibly TOP SECRET information.

 

[lisab]

I don't see the difference between Hillary possibly exposing TOP SECRET information in her emails and Edward Snowden exposing possibly TOP SECRET information.

Really? You equate improper handling of secrets with purposely exposing secrets (possibly with intent to become famous)?

 

[cellurl]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

 

[WWGD]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

She acted irresponsibly, no doubt, maybe illegally, but do you have any reason to believe that either she intended to aid the enemy or that the(an) enemy benefitted from the situation?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, the intent is everything here, which is why what Snowden did was treason, while what Hillary did was just reckless (at most a moderate felony). I see no evidence to suggest ill intent and no evidence to suggest the recklessness actually resulted in harm.

 

[mheslep]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

No mens rea with respect to interests hostile to the US.

 

[WWGD]

No mens rea with respect to interests hostile to the US.

I would say no _womans_ ' rea, to be precise ;) (though some have questioned even _that_ about Hillary. The whole questioning got started when someone misunderstood the statement that Hillary "was not born a broad ".)

 

[cellurl]

She acted irresponsibly, no doubt, maybe illegally, but do you have any reason to believe that either she intended to aid the enemy or that the(an) enemy benefitted from the situation?

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Snowden's position was that some things that the US government declared a secret shouldn't be secrets. Interestingly, some of Sec. Clinton's defenders (although not Sec. Clinton herself) are using the exact same argument in her defense: "Oh, the government classifies lots of things that aren't really all that secret".

 

[Bandersnatch]

Snowden's position was that some things that the US government declared a secret shouldn't be secrets.

Having recently watched 'Citizenfour', I find that a poor representation of his motives. I'd say it was more about the government officials publicly lying about what they're doing. About how invasive their surveillance programs are. He certainly did not take it upon himself to decide what should and what shouldn't be kept secret - that's why he went to the press with his revelations instead of publishing the data in bulk.
If anything, one could say that he wanted government lies not to be swept under the rug, which is a very much different stance.

 

[WWGD]

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

Sorry, I was just dealing with (my limited understanding of ) the formal legalities on whether Hillary violated the law .

 

[russ_watters]

Snowden is a whistleblower living in excile. I would be proud to have both of my sons act as he did. I am also proud that America produced Snowden and that the world sees our people cleaning our own house. No coward there. I also appreciate how intelligent and humble Snowden is. No book deal, no "I hate America like Julian Assange", just pure patriotism trying to clean our house. I think at this point we can perhaps agree to diagree ;-)

Sometimes treason and patriotism overlap -- indeed, patriotism is a pretty common reason (excuse?) for treason. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of his action, he still did something that was clearly damaging to the USA, at face value. The law does not concern itself with 'doing harm to do good', it stops at 'doing harm'.

The same issue exists with stealing food because one is hungry.

 

[Evo]

Both aided the enemy, it's just that one was above board.

Yes, the difference is that Snowden acted intentionally, he intended to commit an act of treason without concern for the harm it could cause. No more of this nonsense comparing the two unless you happen to have acceptable sources that show this. Please read the "current event" rules before posting, such claims are not allowed in this forum, even if it was just an effort at a bad joke. When I have time, there may be some thread cleanup needed to bring the thread back to the guidelines.

 

[WWGD]

Sometimes treason and patriotism overlap -- indeed, patriotism is a pretty common reason (excuse?) for treason. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of his action, he still did something that was clearly damaging to the USA, at face value. The law does not concern itself with 'doing harm to do good', it stops at 'doing harm'.

The same issue exists with stealing food because one is hungry.

But this definition of treason:
"The betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by purposely a consciously acting to aid its enemies"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

I am not sure Snowden's action fall under it. Even more complicated is the fact that, AFAIK, it was the press and not Snowden who published the data. He allegedly did try to raise concern internally before going public, which makes it harder to argue he was trying to defend or aid its enemies. I am neither defending nor condoning his actions, I am just not sure they fall under what I believe is the legal definition of treason. . And I don't think h has been tried, even in absentia.
EDIT: But you may have been talking in a less formal sense.

 

[russ_watters]

But this definition of treason:
"The betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by purposely a consciously acting to aid its enemies"

I am not sure Snowden's action fall under it.

I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see it. Snowden "purposely and consciously" undermined intelligence activities designed to protect the USA, "acting to aid its enemies."

To keep this tied to Hillary: again, the difference is intent, but the reason Hillary's actions are still pretty bad and potentially punishable by prison time. For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/petraeus-to-be-sentenced-for-leaking-classified-material/
David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information as part of aiding a biographer (who he was sleeping with...). He probably didn't even intend for the information to get out and certainly didn't intend harm to come to the US, but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail. His actions and Hillary's as pertains to her giving her lawyer a copy of her emails appear to me to be roughly equal. I see a wide range of potential outcomes for Hillary, from nothing to jail time.

Even more complicated is the fact that, AFAIK, it was the press and not Snowden who published the data.

For Snowden or Hillary, no, it really doesn't. The crime starts and ends with the initial disclosure of the classified information to unauthorized people. Yes, it is possible that the people it is disclosed to commit their own crimes - and in the case of the media, that can be complicated - but it doesn't have much impact on the person disclosing it.

He allegedly did try to raise concern internally before going public, which makes it harder to argue he was trying to defend or aid its enemies.

Nobody is claiming he wanted to aid the USA's enemies, only that he did aid the USA's enemies. It doesn't matter if he was legally or morally right in what his objection was, he still did it.

It is also worth noting that Snowden did not narrowly focus his efforts. He may have disclosed as many as 1.8 million documents. He went after the program he didn't like by undermining it directly - instead of just exposing its existence, he released its results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

Look, I was in the Navy and for a time an officer candidate. We took ethics and morality classes in addition to attending weekly (monthly?) seminars outside of the normal classes. The issue is clearly a really big deal in the military because there is a push-pull particularly with officers between responsibility for following orders and responsibility for upholding the Constitution. We were taught that an officer is duty-bound not to follow an illegal order. Refusal to follow an order is alone a difficult thing that can get you courtmartialed. Hopefully, the court recognizes that the order was illegal. But there is still a huge gulf between refusing to follow an illegal order and refusing to follow an illegal order and then telling the enemy about it.

 

[Evo]

I'm still shocked that Hillary would do something like this. She knew better. I didn't work for the government but worked with the government in clandestine and covert operations. I knew to never post about or copy communications to an non-secure server/network that wasn't on a private network. I can't even really say what I did. but it was an eye opener. I had no idea what really went on and I am proud that these things happened.

But I don't know that anyone else would be any better. I think once these people find out the truth, their minds kind of break down. And I only know a TEENSY WEENY bit of some side operation.

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>. I had no idea what went really went on and I am proud that these things happen.

?

 

[Evo]

?

I am under a ton of documentation not to disclose anything.

 

[WWGD]

I can't fathom why you wouldn't be able to see it. Snowden "purposely and consciously" undermined intelligence activities designed to protect the USA, "acting to aid its enemies."

To keep this tied to Hillary: again, the difference is intent, but the reason Hillary's actions are still pretty bad and potentially punishable by prison time. For example:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/petraeus-to-be-sentenced-for-leaking-classified-material/
David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information as part of aiding a biographer (who he was sleeping with...). He probably didn't even intend for the information to get out and certainly didn't intend harm to come to the US, but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail. His actions and Hillary's as pertains to her giving her lawyer a copy of her emails appear to me to be roughly equal. I see a wide range of potential outcomes for Hillary, from nothing to jail time.

For Snowden or Hillary, no, it really doesn't. The crime starts and ends with the initial disclosure of the classified information to unauthorized people. Yes, it is possible that the people it is disclosed to commit their own crimes - and in the case of the media, that can be complicated - but it doesn't have much impact on the person disclosing it.

Nobody is claiming he wanted to aid the USA's enemies, only that he did aid the USA's enemies. It doesn't matter if he was legally or morally right in what his objection was, he still did it.

It is also worth noting that Snowden did not narrowly focus his efforts. He may have disclosed as many as 1.8 million documents. He went after the program he didn't like by undermining it directly - instead of just exposing its existence, he released its results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

Look, I was in the Navy and for a time an officer candidate. We took ethics and morality classes in addition to attending weekly (monthly?) seminars outside of the normal classes. The issue is clearly a really big deal in the military because there is a push-pull particularly with officers between responsibility for following orders and responsibility for upholding the Constitution. We were taught that an officer is duty-bound not to follow an illegal order. Refusal to follow an order is alone a difficult thing that can get you courtmartialed. Hopefully, the court recognizes that the order was illegal. But there is still a huge gulf between refusing to follow an illegal order and refusing to follow an illegal order and then telling the enemy about it.

I can see (extremely) poor judgement and recklessness , but not intent.
EDIT: Never mind, I get your point.

 

[WWGD]

I am under a ton of documentation not to disclose anything.

Don't worry, I saw a few guys in trench coats (in 95 deg weather)) and dark glasses hinting at their guns staring after me, right after I replied.

 

[Evo]

Don't worry, I saw a few guys in trench coats (in 95 deg weather)) and dark glasses hinting at their guns right after I replied.

It was bad, well, what I did was bad, but he lived. That's all I can say.

 

[mheslep]

David Patraeus mishandled/disclosed classified information ... but that's still serious enough that he's going to jail.

Close. Two years probation and $100K.

 

[jim hardy]

I'm still shocked that Hillary would do something like this. She knew better.

Darn tootin' she did, her husband had to pardon John Deutsch for the exact same thing. (Deutsch liked Macs.)

Lapse of judgement ?

 

[Astronuc]

Legal experts see no criminal trouble for Clinton thus far
http://news.yahoo.com/far-legal-experts-see-no-criminal-trouble-clinton-154607712--election.html

Good news (so far) for Hilary, I guess. It certainly is not clear or apparent that classified information was delivered to an unauthorized person, which would be a clear violation, but only that classified material (some of which was unclassified at the time) was delivered to, stored on and transmitted from an unsecure server. I would have expected a person in her position to know about certain subject matter.