2016 US Presidential election thread

[STEED]

One for those who like conspiracy's

Donald Trump forced to take break from campaign trail for jury service

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...y-service.html


Donald Trump - "Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty"

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by vienna

Hannity and Limbaugh, et al, were also losing it when Benghazi happened crowing that the attack would bring down Clinton and Obama, but so far, meh. This latest brouhaha is added to a bit of a long list of "things to bring down Clinton and/or Obama" since 2009; all of them have been "meh". I'll believe this will do it when it actually happens...

I dunno. Yesterday on NPR, Diane Rehms was freaking out, arguing with her guests that two emails out of 60 is nothing to go after Hillary for. One of her guests, he wasn't the usual cherry picked liberal, he kept insisting that if Hillary comingled her emails on a private server, she was in for some unpleasant legal proceedings.

Her IT people deleted 30,000 emails before turning over the server. I've got news for her, the Justic Dept and FBI can easily examine other emails coming from govt employees to her and from her on the govt servers. If they don't show up on her server, it'll be pretty obvious she had them deleted. That's a coverup.

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...-email-crimes/

I'm going to guess when this comes out, she ends up paying a hefty fine, probably avoid jail time. But the crux is, she really doesn't abide by the rules, and she's willing to lie about it with no shame.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I dunno. Yesterday on NPR, Diane Rehms was freaking out, arguing with her guests that two emails out of 60 is nothing to go after Hillary for. One of her guests, he wasn't the usual cherry picked liberal, he kept insisting that if Hillary comingled her emails on a private server, she was in for some unpleasant legal proceedings.

Her IT people deleted 30,000 emails before turning over the server. I've got news for her, the Justic Dept and FBI can easily examine other emails coming from govt employees to her and from her on the govt servers. If they don't show up on her server, it'll be pretty obvious she had them deleted. That's a coverup.

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...-email-crimes/

I'm going to guess when this comes out, she ends up paying a hefty fine, probably avoid jail time. But the crux is, she really doesn't abide by the rules, and she's willing to lie about it with no shame.

The reasons you gave for the emails not being "lost" are precisely the reasons a coverup may be unlikely. The ability to fully delete any emails, even on 'secure' servers is very low if someone really wants to find the messages and has the resources to do so; I believe the FBI, in particular, and the Justice Department have such resources; if not, there are plenty of outside operation who could do the job. Merely deleting data from a server is not necessarily evidence of a coverup. It is SOP in government at all levels to attempt to thoroughly wipe drives after their usefulness has ended; when I worked for the County of Los Angeles, one of the tasks I was given was to wipe the drives of employees who had left the County's employ. We also wiped the drives of PCs and laptops that were being retired and donated to non-profits for their programs. Even the private sector routinely wipes drives and I have personally wiped drives for many of the private concerns who hired me for their projects. I am really quite sure if local governments and private sector concerns are wary enough to wipe drives, the standards must be even higher at the federal level and even more so at the White Hose Cabinet level...

It should be noted the use of a private server does not necessarily violate any existing Federal law. The big problem with the explosion of technology is the laws and regulations pertaining to such technology are woefully hit and miss. Government being what it is, and the Congress being who they are, action to address the very fast-moving leaps in technology is painfully slow, particularly when compared to the private sector. Should the use of a private server be prohibited? Most probably, yes, but it is not at this time...

As a side to the server question, given current Sec. of State John Kerry' s recent statement of his belief foreign interests (China, Russia, etc.) are probably able to read current government email systems, the use of an off-network anonymous server may not be such a bad idea; of course, then you have the question of data then possibly leaking through mismanagement of those servers...

This whole situation is little more than a continuation of the Congressional GOP's effort to hang something, anything on Hillary Clinton, particularly over the Benghazi incident. After at least five separate probe that I can recall, including a very recent bi-partisan Congressional probe, the fabled "smoking gun" has yet to be found. When the existence of Clinton's private server came to light, the GOP seized on it and demanded the emails and server be turned over to the GOP-chaired Congressional committees. Instead, the data, and now the server, have been turned over to proper investigative entities in the Justice Department and the FBI. If the data and server had gone to the hands of Congress, the concerns about national security would be gravely endangered. Congress, particularly partisan Congress, is a veritable fountain of leaks. If Congress and the GOP are so concerned about National Security, let the professional do their jobs, give their findings, and let the chips fall where they may, good or bad. Letting the pros do the job is infinitely better than letting some ham handed Congressional aide fumble around...

The GOP should be very careful. They've already been burned once trying to chase down a Clinton. They need to remember how the whole Ken Starr-led investigation made them look foolish and petty and resulted in the elevation of Bill Clinton's popularity, which continues today. The GOP Congressional insistence on having the data server turned over to them smells of a fishing expedition, much like Starr starting out to investigate Whitewater. Starr found nothing actionable regarding Whitewater, and glommed onto the whole Lewinski mess as a face-saving effort. The end result was an embarrassment to the GOP leadership and a loss of confidence among the voting populace. Remember the short-lived GOP revolution during the Clinton years? 'm sure Newt Gingrich remembers. Thing s can go sideways real fast. Just last week it was reported that one of the emails being cited by GOP members as a breach of security by Hillary Clinton had actually been previously declassified some time ago by the State Dept.; in fact the GOP members had released a redacted copy of the email in question, yet the previously declassified email had been released in full, without redactions. Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for: you might not like the results...

All the Above is why I still say I'll believe this matter will take down Clinton (or Obama) when it happens...


<O>

[Bilge_Rat]

the problem with the Clinton email issue is that it has become so politicized at this point that it is hard to know what the truth is.

if I look at THIS report, it is hard to see what the fuss is about:

Clinton aides have maintained that nothing on her server was classified at the time she saw it, suggesting that classified messages were given the label after the fact.

John Kirby, a spokesman for the State Department, said that was the case with two emails, adding that it remained unclear "whether, in fact, this material is actually classified."

"Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," Kirby said Tuesday. "They were not marked as classified." [NBC News, 8/12/15]

Associated Press Sources: Emails Don't Include Any "Form Of Sensitive Sourcing." The Associated Press reported that their sources indicate that "nothing in the emails [Clinton] received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing." The AP also reported that their sources disagreed about whether the emails contained classified information. From the AP (emphasis added):

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ials-in/204946

to me, it's more of a case that the GOP knows they can't win on the issues, so are resorting to mud slinging.

[Bilge_Rat]

another view on the email controversy:

As a former Department of Justice official who regularly dealt with classified information, I am glad a team of officials from the FBI, the intelligence community and other agencies is not currently reviewing every email I sent and received while I worked in government. If they did, they would likely find arguably classified information that was transmitted over unclassified networks—and the same thing is undoubtedly true for other senior officials at the White House, the State Department and other top national security agencies.

The sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two.


From the intelligence community’s perspective, the border between these two worlds looks like a brick wall. Many intelligence officials spend their entire day working inside so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, designed to be impenetrable to eavesdropping, and using only separate, classified email systems to communicate with others in government. In these hermetically sealed environments, there is no need to ever sort through the differences between classified and unclassified information.

But for officials charged with dealing with the public, the media and other governments, the lines become much harder to draw.

The Associated Press reported last week that one of the Clinton emails that intelligence officials claim is classified—something the State Department disputes—involved a discussion of drones operating in Pakistan, a fact that is still considered top secret even though it has been openly discussed by government officials on numerous occasions.

The continued top secret classification of drone strikes is silly enough on its own, but the way in which intelligence officials would judge any email conversation about them is even more farcical. According to the AP, the email exchange in question began with an aide to Clinton circulating a news story about the drone program. Obviously, circulating a news story cannot be considered disseminating classified information. But if, for example, that story reported on a successful strike against an Al Qaeda official, and another official responded by writing “great news,” that email would be considered classified because it confirms the existence of the drone program—yes, the same drone program that officials openly discuss with reporters on a near daily basis.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3jHPwEhko

[Wolferz]

SECRECY
The first refuge of the incompetent

[vienna]

I think it should be noted Clinton or her representatives have opposed only the turning over of the emails and/or the servers to Congressional committees or entities, not to legitimate law Federal enforcement agencies (e.g., the FBI). The professionals at the agencies, who are highly trained in computer forensics and, more importantly, the preservation of whatever level of security need to protect possibly sensitive data. To allow a "civilian" entity such as the Congress and its staffers to conduct some ramshackle "investigation" in an environment ripe with leaks and security breaches is highly questionable and a serious hazard to national security. After seeing how sensitive information has been leaked in the past, one would think the Congressional leadership would embrace having the work done by those professionals whose job it is to protect national security; that is, of course, making the assumption there is actually "Congressional leadership"...

In regards to the politicizing of the probes, the specter of a GOP "fishing expedition" is very highly possible. Under the guise of investigating the Benghazi incident, they could pull a Ken Starr and attempt to see f they might find something on Hillary or Obama, no matter how spurious. Imagine the glee of the GOP if they were to stumble upon a metaphorical pair of stained tighty-whities...


<O>

[vienna]

Just came across this regarding the next GOP debate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...of-work-to-do/

... kinda like the "Fox speedboat" vs. the "CNN ocean liner" comparison...


<O>

[Oberon]

Vote for Deez Nuts!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...medium=twitter

[ikalugin]

Is there any candidate that is not openly anti-Russian?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Is there any candidate that is not openly anti-Russian?

Putin.

[ikalugin]

You mean Underwood? Though it would sort of amusing to see Putin and Obama exchanged. Some people just enjoy seeing the world consumed by flames though.

[Oberon]

I really must get around to watching that. So many good series to get through.

EDIT: Putin and Obama exchanged would be amusing, I think Putin would get very frustrated with the US Congress and Senate though and ask for his old job back.

[ikalugin]

Well or he would actually pull of what all those tinfoilhat people are afraid of (and probably wish for).

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Some people just enjoy seeing the world consumed by flames though.

Yeah as long as the flames are kissing someone elses butt and not their own it's great entertainment for some people.