Nixon 2.
3
"extremely careless" is a political statement, not a fact of law.
43
Mrs. Clinton has disqualified herself as a credible candidate for the Presidency. Any suggestion otherwise is based on pure, blind partisanship. Those who suggest that only Republican partisans consider her sloppy, incompetent handling of email security while Secretary of State are themselves guilty of destructive, self-serving, partisanship. I strongly disagree with anyone who suggest that she is "qualified" to be President, let alone "most qualified". This episode clearly demonstrates that her paranoia in trying to shield her Public Service emails from us and her mendacity in her outrageous and clearly misleading public denials effectively disqualifies her forever. There are other Democrats and there are other women more qualified than her that can stand in her place. She should immediately step down as a candidate and retire from public service where she can enjoy some of the millions of dollars she earned giving 1 hour speeches to Wall Street Firms, the transcripts of which she continues to refuse to release. BTW, FBI director Comey indicated that her lawyers deleted emails and then wiped their computers in such a way as to "preclude forensic recovery'. Is that not obstruction of justice?
55
Why do the Democrats insist on shooting themselves in the foot?
"This outcome is one of the significant reasons why I supported Senator Sanders ... I feared that Clinton's very heavy political baggage would make her unelectable..."
It's not like the Democrats are running against Abraham Lincoln here. The opponent is Donald Trump. They could nominate just about anyone and beat him. His poll numbers against Trump are significantly better than Clinton's. HC supporters say those don't count, but apparently hers do. Why, exactly, don't Bernie's count? And even if you do discount those numbers heavily, the opponent here -- again -- is not Abraham Lincoln. Pretty much anyone with a pulse could beat the guy.
"This outcome is one of the significant reasons why I supported Senator Sanders ... I feared that Clinton's very heavy political baggage would make her unelectable..."
It's not like the Democrats are running against Abraham Lincoln here. The opponent is Donald Trump. They could nominate just about anyone and beat him. His poll numbers against Trump are significantly better than Clinton's. HC supporters say those don't count, but apparently hers do. Why, exactly, don't Bernie's count? And even if you do discount those numbers heavily, the opponent here -- again -- is not Abraham Lincoln. Pretty much anyone with a pulse could beat the guy.
21
Lets see.
We can choose the person who built an entire campaign upon a blatantly racist conspiracy theory (birtherism), or we can choose the person who messed up the implementation of a private email server.
Its this really that hard of a choice?
No, it's not, and it's time to stop pretending that it is.
We can choose the person who built an entire campaign upon a blatantly racist conspiracy theory (birtherism), or we can choose the person who messed up the implementation of a private email server.
Its this really that hard of a choice?
No, it's not, and it's time to stop pretending that it is.
43
"Please give us a few examples of these "top secret" e-mails."
Actually, several dozen were allegedly even HIGHER than "top secret," and Comey said that was true even without any "up-classifying."
As for giving you "examples," I'm afraid that's not going to happen. "Top secret" emails usually aren't released to the public -- because, after all, they're "top secret."
I'm surprised so many HC supporters have a hard time accepting that someone who was the US Secretary of State for four years might have had "top secret" information come her way every now and then. It sort of goes with the territory. If you just can't bring yourself to accept the State Department's or FBI's explicit findings that dozens of HC's emails, sent and received via her private server, were top secret, try common sense.
Keep in mind: HC never even had a State Department email address (or, if she did, she never used it). She conducted all -- as in "all" -- of her official business, top secret and otherwise, via a private server in her basement. That may be hard to believe, and I myself wouldn't believe it but for the fact that it actually happened.
Actually, several dozen were allegedly even HIGHER than "top secret," and Comey said that was true even without any "up-classifying."
As for giving you "examples," I'm afraid that's not going to happen. "Top secret" emails usually aren't released to the public -- because, after all, they're "top secret."
I'm surprised so many HC supporters have a hard time accepting that someone who was the US Secretary of State for four years might have had "top secret" information come her way every now and then. It sort of goes with the territory. If you just can't bring yourself to accept the State Department's or FBI's explicit findings that dozens of HC's emails, sent and received via her private server, were top secret, try common sense.
Keep in mind: HC never even had a State Department email address (or, if she did, she never used it). She conducted all -- as in "all" -- of her official business, top secret and otherwise, via a private server in her basement. That may be hard to believe, and I myself wouldn't believe it but for the fact that it actually happened.
32
Why is this even getting so much coverage? Nothing can change the fact that we only have two options at this point: Hillary. Or.... Trump. You are either an avid Trump supporter, or an even stronger Trump hater. That is what will decide this election.
6
No, she is not the nominee yet. There are many other strong Dems from which to choose.
2
Commentary on the judgement of Presidents, members of congress, governors, state legislators and the like is not the duty of a public servant in the performance of the duties of that servant. At one time, many would have thought that the acceptance of such an office might even limit the some level of freedom of speech so as to avoid the appearance of abusing the power of office. Sad, really. I trust that the judgement by my fellow Americans will be to disregard the excess and heed the conclusion that charges of what might be cast as treason is unwarranted. On the other hand, for Secretary Clinton to have such an intimidating presence so as to cow her staff and keep them from pointing out the error is a problem. Even an empress needs to keep staff who will warn her of the absence of dress.
6
This is more about arrogance than anything. My suspicion is that she will not be humbled by it. I think she should come out and say "I should have been better about my organization and protocol, I will learn from this." What a contrast to Mr. Trump that would be!
8
How could it *not* be against the law to put classified and top secret government documents on a non-government, non-secure email system?
Such an act threatens our national security.
It would be one thing if it were accidental which obviously wouldn't occur time after time. But the use of non-government servers was not an accident but a deliberate move. I just don't understand these acts were not against the law.
Such an act threatens our national security.
It would be one thing if it were accidental which obviously wouldn't occur time after time. But the use of non-government servers was not an accident but a deliberate move. I just don't understand these acts were not against the law.
27
And if they were against the law, who was responsible for enforcing it -- the proported law-breaker, who was scolded for not notifying the authorities? No. The authorities. Hillary is not a security expert.
8
Time for Biden.
28
It's times like these when I wish the Republicans had left open the option of voting for someone else...
8
Like most people I'm really sick of the entire situation. This is yet another Clinton controversy: A case that showed terrible judgement but is not a criminal. Very disappointing but not illegal. Why she committed this self inflicted wound is baffling.
Compared to Trump she is still the best viable candidate. That does not mean we are all enthusiastic to have her as a president - but there is not a better choice at this point. She has the relevant experience, is the most qualified, behaves like an adult, and she can do the job. Trump exhibits none of these qualities.
Hillary apologists have to accept that Hilary was WRONG. Her husband's behavior was WRONG. If this situation occurred under Condleezza Rice or Colin Powell people most NTY readers would be demanding jail time.
This was an enormous stumble and exposed Hilary's limitations. Lucky for her she is dealing with a complete amateur political operative on the other side.
Compared to Trump she is still the best viable candidate. That does not mean we are all enthusiastic to have her as a president - but there is not a better choice at this point. She has the relevant experience, is the most qualified, behaves like an adult, and she can do the job. Trump exhibits none of these qualities.
Hillary apologists have to accept that Hilary was WRONG. Her husband's behavior was WRONG. If this situation occurred under Condleezza Rice or Colin Powell people most NTY readers would be demanding jail time.
This was an enormous stumble and exposed Hilary's limitations. Lucky for her she is dealing with a complete amateur political operative on the other side.
15
My reaction to this "witch hunt" is to immediately donate $$$ to the Hillary Clinton campaign for President!
26
Suppose it was Donald Trump who was accused of playing fast and loose with America's secrets to the tune of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 793(f). With the evidence exposed and the possibility of imprisonment for not more than ten years how would the Trump haters feel? How different the remarks would be here in the NYT.
25
Such poor judgment, DESPITE her great 'experience and knowledge' (at least according to these writers) should be VERY troubling.
34
I have never lost any sleep over this email matter with Clinton, however, we will all lost a lot of sleep if Trump becomes President. What a laughing stock he has been when it comes to trustworthiness. If Trump assumes leadership, the Republicans will have to conduct dozens of investigations on Donald Trump. Nothing will get done. Every thing will be UN done.
18
You mean, like it is with our current president?
10
We're likely to see a lot of this in November:
"... for the first time in my life I will be voting for a third party candidate..."
Certainly understandable, but keep in mind that voting for a third party candidate may elect the major-party candidate you like the least.
If a candidate gets, say, 35% of a state's votes, but that's still more than any other candidate gets in the state, the candidate gets ALL of the state's electoral votes. Hubert Humphrey won Texas in 1968 with just 41% of the vote, because Richard Nixon and George Wallace split the majority. Bill Clinton won two terms as President of the US without getting the majority either time. His Republican opponent and H. Ross Perot split the majority both times. Each time, their combined total was higher than Clinton's, but he only had to be the top single vote-getter in a state to get all of its electoral votes.
Hard to say whether many voters who disfavor both Trump and Clinton really will vote for a third-party candidate. Even harder to predict the effect of that. But voters should at least keep in mind that not voting for their favored major-party candidate -- even if he or she is merely the "lesser of two evils" -- may help to elect that "even-greater" evil.
"... for the first time in my life I will be voting for a third party candidate..."
Certainly understandable, but keep in mind that voting for a third party candidate may elect the major-party candidate you like the least.
If a candidate gets, say, 35% of a state's votes, but that's still more than any other candidate gets in the state, the candidate gets ALL of the state's electoral votes. Hubert Humphrey won Texas in 1968 with just 41% of the vote, because Richard Nixon and George Wallace split the majority. Bill Clinton won two terms as President of the US without getting the majority either time. His Republican opponent and H. Ross Perot split the majority both times. Each time, their combined total was higher than Clinton's, but he only had to be the top single vote-getter in a state to get all of its electoral votes.
Hard to say whether many voters who disfavor both Trump and Clinton really will vote for a third-party candidate. Even harder to predict the effect of that. But voters should at least keep in mind that not voting for their favored major-party candidate -- even if he or she is merely the "lesser of two evils" -- may help to elect that "even-greater" evil.
3
8 Years of No Scandals (Barack Obama 2008 - 2016).
Now we have a continuation of the Scandals of 1992-2000 - even before the election.
It appears absolutely impossible for the Clintons to speak the Truth -
(a) "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is",
(b) "None of the emails were classified".
Why would I case a vote for a person I cannot trust.
No trust = No Vote.
Sitting it out in November.
Now we have a continuation of the Scandals of 1992-2000 - even before the election.
It appears absolutely impossible for the Clintons to speak the Truth -
(a) "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is",
(b) "None of the emails were classified".
Why would I case a vote for a person I cannot trust.
No trust = No Vote.
Sitting it out in November.
30
Apparently, you've been asleep for seven and half years.
14
This outcome is one of the significant reasons why I supported Senator Sanders for president. From the moment she declared her candidacy I feared that Clinton's very heavy political baggage would make her unelectable as a candidate. She may, by the skin of her teeth, slide past this judgment that she has been "extremely careless" with State secrets, and manage to beat Trump. But she is in a very difficult position that is made even worse when you consider the implications of the new Chilcot report and her failure to stand up to GW Bush on the Iraq War, which she concedes was a "mistake." These were obvious problems with her candidacy that anyone could see coming. Yet, this newspaper and many, many others in media choose to diminish and ignore Senator Sanders, someone who would have had a much better chance at overcoming Trump and building a democratic Democratic Party.
33
Please give us a few examples of these "top secret" e-mails. I know from experience that FBI and Homeland Security agents consider a lot of things to be "top secret," which, in reality, should not be marked as such. Sometimes the agents are too lazy, or simply don't have enough time, to consider the merits of a case in detail; they just mark the document "top secret" and move on. This way, no one can blame them later if something bad happens. When you talk in abstract about Hillary's carelessness, it seems as though she has done some terrible things. In reality, it may be that she wrote something to an associate which she genuinely considered harmless, but that, in retrospect and from the perspective of an ultra-cautious FBI agent, it could have done some harm (e.g., it could've hurt the feelings of the interior minister of Nepal!). I don't put too much weight into the characterization of these e-mails as "top secret." I'd like to see for myself what they contain. And, in any event, Hillary is my choice for President.
13
I have never seen anyone so relentlessly investigated since Richard Nixon, with a lot less reason. The GOP has never recovered from that investigation. But Nixon at least understood the importance of the general good, unlike the current nominee.
I do think Mrs. Clinton shares the need for secrecy that characterized Mr. Nixon, and that is what caused this. She put her email on her personal server because she wanted some control. This was a poor move for a woman who has a stellar history of public service. I am not happy with her staff, who, like Mr. Nixon's, are very loyal to her, but failed to say don't do that to her.
However, Mrs. Clinton shares Mr. Nixon's idea that there was such a thing as the public good (witness his proposal for Medicare for all to the late Senator Kennedy), A case in point: her support of reasonable gun control measures. The NRA successfully coopted the GOP during her husband's presidency, and the GOP's enslavement to an irrational subculture of citizens does not make anyone else happy.
Are we going down the road to an even more NRA-enslaved Congress, where the death toll goes to 50,000 a year? Are we going to go back to the original Know-Nothings who hated everyone who wasn't like them? Are we going back to dying due to lack of affordable medical care?
Where is the public good in this? I can't see it in the GOP as currently composed, which, though I am very unhappy with her over the email issue, I will be voting for Mrs. Clinton.
I do think Mrs. Clinton shares the need for secrecy that characterized Mr. Nixon, and that is what caused this. She put her email on her personal server because she wanted some control. This was a poor move for a woman who has a stellar history of public service. I am not happy with her staff, who, like Mr. Nixon's, are very loyal to her, but failed to say don't do that to her.
However, Mrs. Clinton shares Mr. Nixon's idea that there was such a thing as the public good (witness his proposal for Medicare for all to the late Senator Kennedy), A case in point: her support of reasonable gun control measures. The NRA successfully coopted the GOP during her husband's presidency, and the GOP's enslavement to an irrational subculture of citizens does not make anyone else happy.
Are we going down the road to an even more NRA-enslaved Congress, where the death toll goes to 50,000 a year? Are we going to go back to the original Know-Nothings who hated everyone who wasn't like them? Are we going back to dying due to lack of affordable medical care?
Where is the public good in this? I can't see it in the GOP as currently composed, which, though I am very unhappy with her over the email issue, I will be voting for Mrs. Clinton.
11
As a scientist it seems completely unjustified to say she was extremely careless with classified documents. In order to know that one would need to know how many classified emails she sent using secure State Department servers. If she sent out a million secure emails, and 100 wound up in the wrong place, well she was actually being very vigilant. For anyone who has tried to keep their work email in a separate account from their personal email, it is difficult. Still, in a situation where you need to be 100% correct, she shouldn't have set up her email that way, or have two phones, or something. But even then you can't prevent someone from using the wrong email and starting a thread in the wrong place. But my take is that for the most part she was extremely careful, not careless
18
Well, maybe to a scintist it's unclear, but as a lawyer, I can tell you that the phrase "extremely careless" has legal signifcance. And it was his conclusion about her behavior after reviewing all the evidence, which, no offense, you have not.
23
This is getting ridiculous. I don't like Trump, but don't the Democrats have some obligation to nominate somebody better than Hillary Clinton? Is it really enough to say "She's better than Trump, so vote for her?" That's really good enough?
39
That is all the Dems have. Kind of pathetic, especially since they have Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden waiting in the wings.
23
curiosity:
how much do the 2016 Presidential Election Campaigns
reflect "popular-culture":
that is,
a real-life
...( and death )...
version of HBO's
Game of Thrones?
with absolutely no 'winners',
simply pile upon pile of 'losers'.
where deceit and deception
are the rules of the day...
right-along-side
unlimited quantities of greed and lust.
mirrors anyone?
grrrr
5
That Mr. Trump lacks experience, temperament and judgment for the office of president of the United States is obvious and requires no further comment. While Mrs. Clinton is an experienced lawyer and did a good job as US Senator from New York, her record as Secretary of State is less than stellar and shows that she is also significantly lacking experience, temperament and judgment, albeit to a lesser degree than Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, the lesser of two evils is not good enough. This is a critical time in American history and an exceptional president is needed at this critical time.There are Americans with executive experience, good temperament and good judgment who would be much better as President of the United States than either of these two candidates. Hopefully a superior candidate will emerge from outside the primary process, either at the convention or through a third party, that most Americans can support and have confidence in.
18
"How many times does the country have to go through this with the Clintons?"
Good question.
Until Bill paid his social visit on the Attorney General last week, I naively thought we were done. I guess not. The Clintons never cease to amaze -- one has to give them that.
Good question.
Until Bill paid his social visit on the Attorney General last week, I naively thought we were done. I guess not. The Clintons never cease to amaze -- one has to give them that.
28
"Are you telling me that Paul Ryan, Dianne Feinstein, Supreme Clerk admins and clerks, Mitch McConnell, Jack Reed, et.al. are abstemious in their use of email.[?}"
Not sure if "abstemious" is the word you're looking for, but I assume you're asking, rhetorically, whether we believe that any of these other people has sent and received top secret emails over a private server? Answer: I don't know -- do you? I'll wager that, if any of them are alleged to have done so, we'd hear about it right away. In other words, HC isn't being treated differently from anyone else here.
Not sure if "abstemious" is the word you're looking for, but I assume you're asking, rhetorically, whether we believe that any of these other people has sent and received top secret emails over a private server? Answer: I don't know -- do you? I'll wager that, if any of them are alleged to have done so, we'd hear about it right away. In other words, HC isn't being treated differently from anyone else here.
8
I'm confused-she sent emails from a personal account, not a .gov so why did it take years to figure this out? And if it was so illegal why didn't anyone at the state department do anything about it? And if you delete an email doesn't it still exist at it's origin or destination? And if people have reportedly been charged for less, why didn't the republican Comey charge her with anything? Any why was it ok for Powell but not HRC? And if there are six articles and editorials on the front page of the NYT on my phone, all extremely critical and none positive, why do people think she gets some sort of special treatment from this paper?
13
Well, this lacks the context provided below but it is a lot better than the nonsense published in the "news analysis" earlier today in which The Times reporter wrote "that the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department."
"Most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department." Really? More so than Condi ignoring Richard Clarke's daily warnings about Al Qaeda or Powell lying to the world at the UN? The deaths caused by these blunders were real, and when one counts Iraqis runs into six figures, unlike the fanciful deaths imagined by you as well as Republicans. And, of course, both Condi and Powell used unsecured servers for their email. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-4....
But, hey, making a horse race out of what should be a no-brainer this fall sells papers. Just ask Les ("It may be terrible the country, but it's great for CBS") Moonves. So brace yourselves, and grab your airsick bags, there'll be lots more to come.
"Most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department." Really? More so than Condi ignoring Richard Clarke's daily warnings about Al Qaeda or Powell lying to the world at the UN? The deaths caused by these blunders were real, and when one counts Iraqis runs into six figures, unlike the fanciful deaths imagined by you as well as Republicans. And, of course, both Condi and Powell used unsecured servers for their email. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-4....
But, hey, making a horse race out of what should be a no-brainer this fall sells papers. Just ask Les ("It may be terrible the country, but it's great for CBS") Moonves. So brace yourselves, and grab your airsick bags, there'll be lots more to come.
16
The poor Republicans were putting all their hopes on Benghazi and the emails. That's because their candidate stinks. Both of their schemes were overplayed; they unraveled. Now, all the Republicans can hope for is that someone start developing policies acceptable to the American people -- an even fainter hope.
11
One could make the case that the 2 candidates we're forced to choose from are guilty of crimes. They've gotten away with plenty. They are power grabbers with compromised characters and they feel little duty to the country. Whatever they say is suspect.
This makes us ask, what are the limits of the American democracy, at this point? Sure we have universal voting in principal---a great achievement of modern civilization. But how does that translate to true representative govt, where we can hope to have leaders working for the majority, not themselves and the elites?
The more they've gotten away with the farther out they'll go. This is the upshot of the 2016 campaign. The 3rd Clinton presidency will be unpleasant and rocky, just less dangerous than if that other crook wins.
This makes us ask, what are the limits of the American democracy, at this point? Sure we have universal voting in principal---a great achievement of modern civilization. But how does that translate to true representative govt, where we can hope to have leaders working for the majority, not themselves and the elites?
The more they've gotten away with the farther out they'll go. This is the upshot of the 2016 campaign. The 3rd Clinton presidency will be unpleasant and rocky, just less dangerous than if that other crook wins.
12
Even with the scathing findings by the FBI, and reported on here by the NYT...still the Editor's Picks are for Hillary Clinton supporters only.
This is what is wrong with the media...
This is what is wrong with the media...
33
The FBI gave Mrs. Clinton a get out of jail card, yet the critics are upset with the FBI for saying anything negative. The critics do not seem to grasp that at best Mrs. Clinton exercised the worst judgment and all kidding aside, she could have been prosecuted and convicted. Only the naïve would believe that the Obama administration was not aware of the FBI's inclination well in advance and that it did not veto the very language the FBI Director used in his critique of Ms Clinton. What a shame we have no choice but to vote for her or be stuck with a thug.
16
What gain can Mrs. Clinton have realized by not using a classified server? None. Therefore, perhaps this should be an issue about using private servers since they are vulnerable to hacking by ALL state department officials. This should have been about Clinton, Rice, and Powell, rather than just about Clinton.
6
@FrankS:
Why bring up Rice and Powell in the conversation? They didn't have any personal servers in their homes. And they certainly didn't lie when asked about their emails.
What gain you ask? If you followed news all from both sides of political spectrum, you would realize that Hillary wanted to protect anything she writes from any future investigation of her activities. She already was planning to hide. That's a powerful motive to acquire a personal server.
Why bring up Rice and Powell in the conversation? They didn't have any personal servers in their homes. And they certainly didn't lie when asked about their emails.
What gain you ask? If you followed news all from both sides of political spectrum, you would realize that Hillary wanted to protect anything she writes from any future investigation of her activities. She already was planning to hide. That's a powerful motive to acquire a personal server.
18
Hard to believe, but some HC supporters are still saying that no classified material made it onto HC's private server. The State Department says otherwise. The FBI says otherwise. But, apparently, these HC supporters know better.
Here's another way you might look at it, HC supporters:
HC was our Secretary of State for four years. She never even had a State Department email address. Every email she sent or received in her official duties was sent via her private server. In those four years as SOS, do you suppose any classified information came her way? Or did she spend those four years emailing her cat's veterinarian?
Of COURSE she had classified information. If you just can't accept the State Department's or FBI's findings on this, try plain old common sense.
Here's another way you might look at it, HC supporters:
HC was our Secretary of State for four years. She never even had a State Department email address. Every email she sent or received in her official duties was sent via her private server. In those four years as SOS, do you suppose any classified information came her way? Or did she spend those four years emailing her cat's veterinarian?
Of COURSE she had classified information. If you just can't accept the State Department's or FBI's findings on this, try plain old common sense.
23
A Clinton supporter insists:
"These emails did no harm to anybody--except to Hillary Clinton herself."
How can you possibly know that? How do you know some spy didn't hack HC's private server and get every email sent to or from it? Nobody knows that, including you. If that happened, that did harm to every American. Frankly, I suspect it did happen, since a bored 14-year old kid could hack into a private server from a laptop in his bedroom.
MAYBE nobody hacked these emails. But I sure don't know. The US government says it doesn't know. So how do YOU know?
"These emails did no harm to anybody--except to Hillary Clinton herself."
How can you possibly know that? How do you know some spy didn't hack HC's private server and get every email sent to or from it? Nobody knows that, including you. If that happened, that did harm to every American. Frankly, I suspect it did happen, since a bored 14-year old kid could hack into a private server from a laptop in his bedroom.
MAYBE nobody hacked these emails. But I sure don't know. The US government says it doesn't know. So how do YOU know?
22
Having her own email server showed that she either had distrust of government or that she is unique not like other government employees. Maybe both. Looks like she has some things in common with Mr Trump!
10
Let us assume the worst; that Hillary Clinton's personal server leaked sensitive information to hostile agents and Bill Clinton's (hardly) secret meeting with Loretta Lynch led to no charges filed. The fallout from that hypothetical scenario would, without a doubt, affect the election.
However, apart from the above as yet unproven scenario, here is what actually happened in fact: Bankrupt Donald immediately reacted like the kindergartener in the sandbox that he has proven to be time after time. "It's rigged!" he whined. "It's not fair," he bleated. One would think somebody had forced Trump to release his tax returns and offer concrete policies instead of insults.
One hopes others see what really happened. Whiny Donald is now playing power politics with the big leaguers, not a group of gullible Donald wannabes who figure buying some plagiarized real estate worksheets will lead to riches, which they won't unless each has a daddy who'll give them a million dollars in seed money.
Trump can't compete with the truly powerful - in campaigning, in the media, or in clandestine meetings with other truly powerful people. He can insult, feed the paranoia of others, and he can point his stubby fingers at anybody he wants. He's loud - but has not a whit of power - real power. He doesn't have the power to affect the FBI or the US AG. That is, if any of his transparent, self-serving accusations really happened.
All he can do is whine, bleat, and insult. And lose.
However, apart from the above as yet unproven scenario, here is what actually happened in fact: Bankrupt Donald immediately reacted like the kindergartener in the sandbox that he has proven to be time after time. "It's rigged!" he whined. "It's not fair," he bleated. One would think somebody had forced Trump to release his tax returns and offer concrete policies instead of insults.
One hopes others see what really happened. Whiny Donald is now playing power politics with the big leaguers, not a group of gullible Donald wannabes who figure buying some plagiarized real estate worksheets will lead to riches, which they won't unless each has a daddy who'll give them a million dollars in seed money.
Trump can't compete with the truly powerful - in campaigning, in the media, or in clandestine meetings with other truly powerful people. He can insult, feed the paranoia of others, and he can point his stubby fingers at anybody he wants. He's loud - but has not a whit of power - real power. He doesn't have the power to affect the FBI or the US AG. That is, if any of his transparent, self-serving accusations really happened.
All he can do is whine, bleat, and insult. And lose.
2
Is there a double standard being applied to Hillary Clinton by the media,
including the New York Times?
I believe the Times' coverage, and now this editorial, proves there is one.
Where was the outrage when the Bushes deleted millions of emails,
many of which likely proved the lies that led the world into the tragedy
that was and is the aftermath of the Iraq war? Where was the outrage
when malicious lies were stated about Obama Care? Where are the headlines about the incessant lying by the GOP nominee, Mr. Trump?
I, for one, am offended by a press that holds holier than thou attitudes
for some and not for all.
including the New York Times?
I believe the Times' coverage, and now this editorial, proves there is one.
Where was the outrage when the Bushes deleted millions of emails,
many of which likely proved the lies that led the world into the tragedy
that was and is the aftermath of the Iraq war? Where was the outrage
when malicious lies were stated about Obama Care? Where are the headlines about the incessant lying by the GOP nominee, Mr. Trump?
I, for one, am offended by a press that holds holier than thou attitudes
for some and not for all.
19
"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi."
I agree and have always said so that these email charges were overblown.
But:
Lesser people have been prosecuted and their lives destroyed for less serious transgressions. I sincerely hope they have good lawyers who can now help them get their convictions reversed. It would only be fair. Either we are all the same before the law or we are not.
I agree and have always said so that these email charges were overblown.
But:
Lesser people have been prosecuted and their lives destroyed for less serious transgressions. I sincerely hope they have good lawyers who can now help them get their convictions reversed. It would only be fair. Either we are all the same before the law or we are not.
13
As much as was in the extraordinary comments from James Comey, there was much left out.
1. His comments are a breech of protocol. Bias?
2. Mr. Comey was a Republican prosecutor on one of the most political acts of my lifetime: the impeachment of Bill Clinton on "crimes" of the same type but less severe than those committed by the entire Republican Congressional leadership of the day. Bias?
3. 110 emails--but no mention of the number sent to the server (and thus, the responsibility of the sender. No mention of the number of these well down the attachment list, if forwarded or replied to. This matters. Bias?
4. Some security classification of the material at the time--but no mention of the number with the security classification identified in the attachment. This also matters. Bias?
There is no reason to doubt the numbers given. There is great reason to doubt the implied severity. If unidentified attachments buried in a long email contained material not marked classified, then three things are likely:
a. discovering classification would be unlikely
b. actually reading the information would be unlikely.
c. forwarding this hidden information would be likely, unknowingly propagating it.
There is no evidence Mr. Comey is exploring who put the classified information into the emails once it was determined it was not Hillary. Bias?
1. His comments are a breech of protocol. Bias?
2. Mr. Comey was a Republican prosecutor on one of the most political acts of my lifetime: the impeachment of Bill Clinton on "crimes" of the same type but less severe than those committed by the entire Republican Congressional leadership of the day. Bias?
3. 110 emails--but no mention of the number sent to the server (and thus, the responsibility of the sender. No mention of the number of these well down the attachment list, if forwarded or replied to. This matters. Bias?
4. Some security classification of the material at the time--but no mention of the number with the security classification identified in the attachment. This also matters. Bias?
There is no reason to doubt the numbers given. There is great reason to doubt the implied severity. If unidentified attachments buried in a long email contained material not marked classified, then three things are likely:
a. discovering classification would be unlikely
b. actually reading the information would be unlikely.
c. forwarding this hidden information would be likely, unknowingly propagating it.
There is no evidence Mr. Comey is exploring who put the classified information into the emails once it was determined it was not Hillary. Bias?
11
@mjohns:
Only devoted liberals can possibly see bias in Comey's comments.
1. Who says they were a breech of protocol? There wasn't any.
2. So what if he was a Republican prosecutor. Obama chose him, right?
3. Emails aren't sent to a server - they are sent to a person. It's up the receiver to choose the server they use. And in matters of security, it's up the receiver to be diligent in protecting them. Now we all kinow, and believe, that Hillary was excessively careless. To the average person, that is the same as negligent. Bias on your part, perhaps?
4. Who are you or I or NYT to question the "implied severity"? We have experts for that; they shared their assessments with Comey. More bias on your part?
5. Secretary of State doesn't need any icons or markers to know if the email is secret. She can tell from the content; that's her job.
Finally it does not matter who put the classified information in the email. Hillary's job was to handle it properly, protect it, and she alone is responsible for the information on the servers used excluseivly by her.
Only devoted liberals can possibly see bias in Comey's comments.
1. Who says they were a breech of protocol? There wasn't any.
2. So what if he was a Republican prosecutor. Obama chose him, right?
3. Emails aren't sent to a server - they are sent to a person. It's up the receiver to choose the server they use. And in matters of security, it's up the receiver to be diligent in protecting them. Now we all kinow, and believe, that Hillary was excessively careless. To the average person, that is the same as negligent. Bias on your part, perhaps?
4. Who are you or I or NYT to question the "implied severity"? We have experts for that; they shared their assessments with Comey. More bias on your part?
5. Secretary of State doesn't need any icons or markers to know if the email is secret. She can tell from the content; that's her job.
Finally it does not matter who put the classified information in the email. Hillary's job was to handle it properly, protect it, and she alone is responsible for the information on the servers used excluseivly by her.
13
It was a 15-minute presser; the public is NOT entitled to know what additional steps, if any, are being taken regarding the unclassified email let alone the classified email.
Having worked in the legal department for the feds, when processing a FOIA request names, personal contact info, dates, etc., of individuals not germane to the matter at hand are redacted from disclosure as well as parts of witness testimony including the name of the witness, at times.
Having worked in the legal department for the feds, when processing a FOIA request names, personal contact info, dates, etc., of individuals not germane to the matter at hand are redacted from disclosure as well as parts of witness testimony including the name of the witness, at times.
6
Some reporter should ask Trump where his email server is. My guess is that he has no idea what an email server is or where "his" is. Clinton probably didn't either.
5
Hillary commits the felony.
Obama liberals demand reporters ask Trump about emails.
So focused. Never distracted.
Seriously.
Obama liberals demand reporters ask Trump about emails.
So focused. Never distracted.
Seriously.
23
Well, if Clinton did not know WHERE her email server was, having it explicitly installed in her own HOME so she had absolute control over the storage of her own private emails, then she definitely would be out of contention for President. That would be pretty clear-cut evidence of dementia.
As for Trump, he is probably using Yahoo! Mail
As for Trump, he is probably using Yahoo! Mail
15
@mark:
Please explain what does Trump have to do with how Hilary handled her emails while on duty. Why bring him into the discussion? Perhaps to divert from the inconvenient truth that Hillary is a liar?
Please explain what does Trump have to do with how Hilary handled her emails while on duty. Why bring him into the discussion? Perhaps to divert from the inconvenient truth that Hillary is a liar?
19
I've heard enough from Hillary's supporters about us so-called Hillary haters. I admit that I don't like Hillary, but hate is not part of my concern. What I really don't like is her supporters who cannot admit that she is lying and cheating her way into office by riding the media-induced wave of fear. If she and her supporters had a sense of decency she would graciously withdraw and support Bernie who would beat Trump in a landslide. Quit bashing people who have the courage to stand up to the Clinton's continuous lies and deceptions. Wake up Democrats before you make Trump the president.
40
Bernie, Biden, or Kasich would easily make better presidents than either of the two leading candidates.
...But we picked 'em. We knew about each of their long lists of short-comings WHEN we picked them. I guess we get what we deserve.
...But we picked 'em. We knew about each of their long lists of short-comings WHEN we picked them. I guess we get what we deserve.
7
Utterly amazing how this woman - the First Lady in American history to be subpoenaed for a criminal investigation - again skirts justice. My, my.
23
Has the question "What other individuals in the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches of government used private email servers for governmental/public communications?"
I'm not reading or seeing the discussions on this question.
Are you telling me that Paul Ryan, Dianne Feinstein, Supreme Clerk admins and clerks, Mitch McConnell, Jack Reed, et.al. are abstemious in their use of email.
I'm not reading or seeing the discussions on this question.
Are you telling me that Paul Ryan, Dianne Feinstein, Supreme Clerk admins and clerks, Mitch McConnell, Jack Reed, et.al. are abstemious in their use of email.
3
Despite this report, the email "scandal" is overblown nonsense and in no way diminishes Mrs Clinton's qualifications for the presidency.
First, anyone who has worked in government and handled classified information knows that bureaucracies typically over-classify documents. In this case, the State Dept and the CIA even disagreed on the correct classification for many of the emails reviewed in hindsight. Second, it appears only two emails were marked as classified at the time Clinton received them on her private email account and both were classified "confidential" which is one of the lowest security classifications. So the idea that Mrs C "lied" about never having received emails marked as classified (a correction from her previous statement that she never received classified information) is ridiculous.
Mrs Clinton has been a competent senator of an important state and an equally competent Secretary of State. That more than outweighs this lapse of judgement on her part which probably reflects an overly relaxed attitude within the State Dept as a whole towards classifying material.
First, anyone who has worked in government and handled classified information knows that bureaucracies typically over-classify documents. In this case, the State Dept and the CIA even disagreed on the correct classification for many of the emails reviewed in hindsight. Second, it appears only two emails were marked as classified at the time Clinton received them on her private email account and both were classified "confidential" which is one of the lowest security classifications. So the idea that Mrs C "lied" about never having received emails marked as classified (a correction from her previous statement that she never received classified information) is ridiculous.
Mrs Clinton has been a competent senator of an important state and an equally competent Secretary of State. That more than outweighs this lapse of judgement on her part which probably reflects an overly relaxed attitude within the State Dept as a whole towards classifying material.
14
You are right about one thing... Mrs. Clinton's basic qualifications for the presidency has not changed:
She was born in the United States.
She is over 35 years old.
She was born in the United States.
She is over 35 years old.
16
I've never seen anyone get so many passes for obscene irresponsibility.
Mrs. Clinton claims she deleted only those emails that were personal, yoga, birthday notes, etc.
Why even delete those? If they were sooooo innocuous, why even bother? Her entire email history on official use devices was supposed to have been archived. She is the one who determined to combine personal and work emails on her devices. That is her problem, not ours. So archive it all. Let the low level employees at the State Department separate out the "yoga" emails. Why pay hellaciously expensive attorneys to do that?
The Clinton's are the same people who took a $2 tax deduction for used underwear on their 1994 income tax return. So....now....Hillary pays for own servers when she could have used a State Dept secured server for free? And pays expensive lawyers to scrub her emails? Leopards don't change their spots.
She's hiding something huge. Give us all a break. She is as slimy as they come.
Mrs. Clinton claims she deleted only those emails that were personal, yoga, birthday notes, etc.
Why even delete those? If they were sooooo innocuous, why even bother? Her entire email history on official use devices was supposed to have been archived. She is the one who determined to combine personal and work emails on her devices. That is her problem, not ours. So archive it all. Let the low level employees at the State Department separate out the "yoga" emails. Why pay hellaciously expensive attorneys to do that?
The Clinton's are the same people who took a $2 tax deduction for used underwear on their 1994 income tax return. So....now....Hillary pays for own servers when she could have used a State Dept secured server for free? And pays expensive lawyers to scrub her emails? Leopards don't change their spots.
She's hiding something huge. Give us all a break. She is as slimy as they come.
25
I will take untrustworthy over dangerous any day. I'm with her.
9
Until she throws you overboard.
12
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
“Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.”
― Mark Twain
We are undergoing a national test of character. And we are failing, miserably. Our politics has reached a nadir, and we the people clearly lack the will or the focus to demand better.
― Mahatma Gandhi
“Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.”
― Mark Twain
We are undergoing a national test of character. And we are failing, miserably. Our politics has reached a nadir, and we the people clearly lack the will or the focus to demand better.
23
Correction: HALF of us. Speak for yourself, not for me. I voted correctly in the primary.
12
I wish this election was over. Hillary and Bill as well have made some foolish moves but the thought of having the bigot Trump in office is too much to even think about.
10
How about Bernie? It's not too late.
8
Get used to it. Four more months. I'm done voting this election cycle, so I feel for you or anyone still supporting HRC for that matter.
11
He just got booed by the House Democrats. I would go for Biden
3
How refreshing would the absolute truth from Hillary Clinton on this be. And is the answer to why two separate phones weren't used, "Some of my personal conversations and utterances might be occurring in conversations that include top secret material, and there not being a fix for that problem I basically said f it?" The plain truth would be much more a positive for her going forward than continuing to evade. Of course I'm voting for her!
3
You keep hearing from folks who should know, that HRC (& Bill) are very, very smart people - so why do they keep doing very, very stupid things?
20
I've been scratching my head on that one for 20 years...
It is arrogance, but I still like them. But I was shaking my head in disbelief at her bevavior. SO stupid.
It is arrogance, but I still like them. But I was shaking my head in disbelief at her bevavior. SO stupid.
4
Of course, it's a feeding frenzy at this latest development.
But amidst it all, is anyone really considering the alternative??
Aside from the fact it involves someone who consisently bankrupts his own business ventrues to make a profit, is proxy for the Republican establishment that wants to control ALL branches of Government, and only recently praised the likes of Saadam Hussein.
That's a very large price-tag for a careless mistake in judgement.
But amidst it all, is anyone really considering the alternative??
Aside from the fact it involves someone who consisently bankrupts his own business ventrues to make a profit, is proxy for the Republican establishment that wants to control ALL branches of Government, and only recently praised the likes of Saadam Hussein.
That's a very large price-tag for a careless mistake in judgement.
7
Well, she's not the nominee yet, so there are *other*'alternatives, even for the Democratic party.
9
There is no scandal here. Mr. Comey grudgingly admitted that Mrs. Clinton's actions did not compromise American security. He had to give his Republican colleagues something, and so he offered a lot of self-righteous scolding. It was a Trump campaign event. This is a completely insignificant issue, seized by republicans because they have no real material to support their claim of untrustworthiness. And this is after many years of intense scrutiny. Shame on the NYT editorial board for taking it seriously.
15
R-i-g-h-t-!
So, if national security doesn't really pass as a "real" and "significant" issue, would you trust Mrs. Clinton with your Social Security number or your credit card numbers? Would you lend her your at-work email account? How about your personal medical records?
Care to share?
I doubt it, and I hope not.
So, if national security doesn't really pass as a "real" and "significant" issue, would you trust Mrs. Clinton with your Social Security number or your credit card numbers? Would you lend her your at-work email account? How about your personal medical records?
Care to share?
I doubt it, and I hope not.
12
Since this decision came out, I've been hearing the Pro-Hillary cognoscenti saying that people like Colin Powell did this same thing, as did many others. They argue the imminent danger from the New York "barbarian at the gate", Donald Trump as an excuse to shove all this under the carpet.
I beg to differ.
HRC is running for the highest office in the land, with the highest form of fiduciary duty to the nation. She DID this. She LIED about doing it. And she is running for president.
The EGO! The GALL!
This is what the Clintons do - they take their sense of entitlement, that the laws shouldn't apply to them (a sentiment perhaps bolstered by yesterday's FBI decision), combined with their bad judgment, and ask the people to love them even though they've been bad. It worked for Bill - and now Hillary's taking a page from Bill's book.
Bill is an impeached president (though not confirmed by the Senate); Hillary has now been impeached as well - but they'll move onward, because that's the way they are - and sadly, it works.
And then you have this highly moral and comparatively impeccable candidate, Bernie Sanders who has been shouted down and out-maneuvered by the Clinton machine (what ever DID happen to the 2 million votes in the CA election, ANYWAY??)
Remember this if and when you elect her, Americans: people really DO get the government they deserve.
I beg to differ.
HRC is running for the highest office in the land, with the highest form of fiduciary duty to the nation. She DID this. She LIED about doing it. And she is running for president.
The EGO! The GALL!
This is what the Clintons do - they take their sense of entitlement, that the laws shouldn't apply to them (a sentiment perhaps bolstered by yesterday's FBI decision), combined with their bad judgment, and ask the people to love them even though they've been bad. It worked for Bill - and now Hillary's taking a page from Bill's book.
Bill is an impeached president (though not confirmed by the Senate); Hillary has now been impeached as well - but they'll move onward, because that's the way they are - and sadly, it works.
And then you have this highly moral and comparatively impeccable candidate, Bernie Sanders who has been shouted down and out-maneuvered by the Clinton machine (what ever DID happen to the 2 million votes in the CA election, ANYWAY??)
Remember this if and when you elect her, Americans: people really DO get the government they deserve.
24
Yes, she had a private server. No, she didn't steal 2 million votes. Bernie is not impeccable - a guy who is going to keel over in a few years has come to the table too late expecting a 9 course meal.
3
How about some semblance of proportion?
George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. 4,500 Americans died, more than 100,000 Iraqis died.
Condoleezza Rice lied after 3,000 died on American soil on soil on 9/11/01, claiming that nobody ever imagined a commercial airliner being hijacked and flown into buildings. This despite the report of the Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorism (1999), the Bojinka plot to hijack eleven airliners and fly them into buildings including CIA headquarters (1995), hijacking in Algeria of Air France flight 8969 with the target being the Eiffel Tower in Paris (1994), Tom Clancy's best-selling selling novel "Debt of Honor."
George W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. 4,500 Americans died, more than 100,000 Iraqis died.
Condoleezza Rice lied after 3,000 died on American soil on soil on 9/11/01, claiming that nobody ever imagined a commercial airliner being hijacked and flown into buildings. This despite the report of the Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorism (1999), the Bojinka plot to hijack eleven airliners and fly them into buildings including CIA headquarters (1995), hijacking in Algeria of Air France flight 8969 with the target being the Eiffel Tower in Paris (1994), Tom Clancy's best-selling selling novel "Debt of Honor."
7
i was surprised to find how difficult it is to set up a private email server
it doesnt happen by accident, and it costs a lot of money
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/how-to-run-your-ow...
it doesnt happen by accident, and it costs a lot of money
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/how-to-run-your-ow...
14
It hardly costs a lot of money, but it does cost you the better part of a weekend to set up a secure one on a Raspberry Pi. That's about $50 worth of hardware, including the power supply and the memory card.
Now, if Hillary had done THAT herself, then I would have been impressed.
Now, if Hillary had done THAT herself, then I would have been impressed.
4
I find the comments by Comey beyond "inappropriate." What I can't decide is whether it was politically motivated, an irresistible frustration to slap hands of the naturally less cautious culture of the State Department or fear of critiques by the Republican establishment.
16
She was an adult during the Vietnam war and witnessed the destruction there. Still she voted for the war in Iraq. She followed up with orchestrating the Libyan invasion (Obama's "worst mistake") and messed up with Syria. These alone makes her not qualified. But still, how can the "most experienced candidate" (as NYT has been telling us) be so "extremely careless" and "reckless"? This the n-th (n >= 5) editorial NYT has written begging her to "demonstrate ???" What a pity!
20
Prior to her being an adult during the Vietnam War, she was a teenage Goldwater Girl. One always goes back to their roots.
3
Really??...Back to the war in Iraq???
Do you actually remember WHO started that war?
Here's a hint. It wasn't Clinton.
Now, do you remember why??? (besides OIL)
It was because of those WMDs that were never found-- because they didn't exisit!!!!
And the next time you hear "extremely careless" -- think of G.W. Bush.
Do you actually remember WHO started that war?
Here's a hint. It wasn't Clinton.
Now, do you remember why??? (besides OIL)
It was because of those WMDs that were never found-- because they didn't exisit!!!!
And the next time you hear "extremely careless" -- think of G.W. Bush.
12
@tuna
WHAT?? The old Goldwater trope again?? --- running low on ammo?
Just for the record.
Very FEW people go unchanged through life.
And you'll only find one's roots when you dig a little DEEPER.
Try it.
WHAT?? The old Goldwater trope again?? --- running low on ammo?
Just for the record.
Very FEW people go unchanged through life.
And you'll only find one's roots when you dig a little DEEPER.
Try it.
2
The long -awaited FBI report should go a long way in improving Hillary's low trustworthy and truthful standings.
9
These emails did no harm to anybody--except to Hillary Clinton herself.
5
Actually, we really don't know. They were unable to conclude with certainty if any of that information found on her server (and that was deemed as classified) if any foreign government had accessed it. Feels so refreshing to know our next POTUS plays so fast and freely with national security matters.
8
Congratulations to Mrs. Clinton. She can now claim, as Nixon once did, "I am not a crook!"
16
One other relation to Tricky Dick Nixon: This former Goldwater Girl has an admiring respect for Henry Kissinger.
4
Oh please. That same old used up Nixon-analogy -- this is right out of a book of famous political quotes.
Not too original.
Not too original.
3
"Only little people pay taxes." Leona
Rules are for other people, not us -- Bill & Hillary
Rules are for other people, not us -- Bill & Hillary
15
And some like Donald Trump, don't even pay taxes at all --- Still waiting for that income tax information.
Or, have you forgotten that????
Or, have you forgotten that????
5
@ N. Smith
Bit off-topic aren't you? But that's the purpose, isn't it?
Bit off-topic aren't you? But that's the purpose, isn't it?
7
If you would like an example of how the Times' relentless publishing of innuendo about Mrs. Clinton from unnamed sources continues to play into this campaign, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent provides a perfect example:
Trump's accusation that Mrs. Clinton was to retain Loretta Lynch in her administration came from a "Times piece which claimed: “'Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch.' The insinuation, spelled out by Trump and echoed widely on twitter yesterday by even some on the left, is that the Clinton campaign, and even Clinton herself, offered Lynch a job as a way of swaying the investigation’s outcome. But anyone who knows how D.C. works knows that there are probably hundreds of people in this city who are eager to tell reporters that they are “close” to the Clintons. There is no way to fairly read this reporting, at least as it was transmitted there, as any kind of official position of the Clinton campaign, let alone of the candidate. Maybe Clinton does intend to retain Lynch, but there’s no basis for asserting this or extrapolating anything from it until her campaign or she says so."
Trump's accusation that Mrs. Clinton was to retain Loretta Lynch in her administration came from a "Times piece which claimed: “'Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch.' The insinuation, spelled out by Trump and echoed widely on twitter yesterday by even some on the left, is that the Clinton campaign, and even Clinton herself, offered Lynch a job as a way of swaying the investigation’s outcome. But anyone who knows how D.C. works knows that there are probably hundreds of people in this city who are eager to tell reporters that they are “close” to the Clintons. There is no way to fairly read this reporting, at least as it was transmitted there, as any kind of official position of the Clinton campaign, let alone of the candidate. Maybe Clinton does intend to retain Lynch, but there’s no basis for asserting this or extrapolating anything from it until her campaign or she says so."
8
George W. Bush famously provided the world with the false dichotomy of, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair acquiesced to that stunted kind of thinking, and the release today of the Chilcot report serves as a sobering account of the consequences of doing so.
In a similar way, those here who suggest that, "you're either with Hillary, or you're with the Donald" apparently suffer from the same form of afflicted thinking. Thoughtful people can rightfully object when the candidate seeking the most powerful office in the land, a position whose judgment and conduct will impact the lives of millions, is repeatedly caught in the telling of deliberate lies to further her own interests. Measured against even modest standards of character, neither candidate has shown themselves to be qualified for the office they seek. The American people deserve better. And we will get that only when we stop settling for less!
In a similar way, those here who suggest that, "you're either with Hillary, or you're with the Donald" apparently suffer from the same form of afflicted thinking. Thoughtful people can rightfully object when the candidate seeking the most powerful office in the land, a position whose judgment and conduct will impact the lives of millions, is repeatedly caught in the telling of deliberate lies to further her own interests. Measured against even modest standards of character, neither candidate has shown themselves to be qualified for the office they seek. The American people deserve better. And we will get that only when we stop settling for less!
12
He had to throw some red meat to the GOP. The GOP have been attacking Hiliary since she tried to help fix health care 20 years ago. Their goal has been accomplished in the poorly educated south. In JOklahoma, many believe these outright lies spewed by triumphant hate mongers like FOX news, Beck and Limbaugh. They operate under the Orwellian principle of if you tell a lie enough, people believe it's true. The extremely biased news outlets are the gospel for many of the working poor, lowly educated southern folks. It's been keeping them voting against their own self interest for years.
13
This definitely casts a dark shadow on her judgement. I am very disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing a woman POTUS in my lifetime.
May be she should bow out of the race gracefully and let Bernie carry the flag all the way to the White House.
May be she should bow out of the race gracefully and let Bernie carry the flag all the way to the White House.
16
Maybe then Bernie would be willing to release his tax returns.
5
Just when you thought it was impossible for a candidate to become more execrable.
And look, I don't even have to refer to a specific candidate!
And look, I don't even have to refer to a specific candidate!
15
She would be forced to step aside, given Comey's statement, if her voters themselves, had any standard.
16
Did you actually READ the article??? --
4
Way too much improper editorializing and commentary from Comey. That kind of judgment is above his pay grade.
18
CORRECTION: "Top Secret" is not the highest level of classification for communications. In fact, a "Top Secret" clearance is very common in the military, State Department, intelligence community and other branches of the federal government.
For higher levels of secrecy, a code word is often added that further limits access to only those people who have been cleared for that code word addition. For example, "Top Secret - Ultra123."
On a higher level yet, vitally secret information is often accessible ONLY within the physical confines of a "SCIF," which stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility." These guarded, EMR-resistant buildings usually require multiple passwords and ID checks before one can gain entry to the front door, plus more passwords and/or biometric scans before gaining access to specific information (e..g, text, images, audio footage, videos, tables, maps, etc.) Big difference here!
Let's be thorough in our terminology and understanding of these matters when addressing the Clinton e-mail investigation. Apples are not oranges in the secrecy arena.
For higher levels of secrecy, a code word is often added that further limits access to only those people who have been cleared for that code word addition. For example, "Top Secret - Ultra123."
On a higher level yet, vitally secret information is often accessible ONLY within the physical confines of a "SCIF," which stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility." These guarded, EMR-resistant buildings usually require multiple passwords and ID checks before one can gain entry to the front door, plus more passwords and/or biometric scans before gaining access to specific information (e..g, text, images, audio footage, videos, tables, maps, etc.) Big difference here!
Let's be thorough in our terminology and understanding of these matters when addressing the Clinton e-mail investigation. Apples are not oranges in the secrecy arena.
12
Just came across this in a Commissario Brunetti mystery by Donna Leon: "Have we arrived, then, he wondered, at the point where the absence of a vice equals the presence of its opposite? Have we all gone mad?"
6
Since when did emailing skills become a litmus test for the presidency?
13
Hilary wants to be President and probably will be but she reminds me of the recent comment on a Jimmy Fallon show when he invited funniest Mom comments:
"Honey, will you please shut the door! Your letting all the wifi out!"
Hysterical, Watching Hillary and Warren up on the stage the other day, two women in their late sixties, white, dressed in blue, northeastern in complexity and outlook, the optics were terrible for a diversified ticket. Given especially the other day during the house shutdown, Elizabeth Warren saying as she blocked someone's camera phone who was trying to snap shot the event, I don't understand how that all works, or my phone for that matter.
So you wonder why young people are not jumping and and down for Hillary? She is clueless or inept or careless or is it hubris? when it comes to something that most people would understand; our system is being hacked by Iran, China and Russia. How irresponsible can you get?
I don't know, Obama thinks she is the most qualified person to ever run for the presidency...
Thanks for the electoral college I probably won't have to vote for her in Oregon in the fall...
"Honey, will you please shut the door! Your letting all the wifi out!"
Hysterical, Watching Hillary and Warren up on the stage the other day, two women in their late sixties, white, dressed in blue, northeastern in complexity and outlook, the optics were terrible for a diversified ticket. Given especially the other day during the house shutdown, Elizabeth Warren saying as she blocked someone's camera phone who was trying to snap shot the event, I don't understand how that all works, or my phone for that matter.
So you wonder why young people are not jumping and and down for Hillary? She is clueless or inept or careless or is it hubris? when it comes to something that most people would understand; our system is being hacked by Iran, China and Russia. How irresponsible can you get?
I don't know, Obama thinks she is the most qualified person to ever run for the presidency...
Thanks for the electoral college I probably won't have to vote for her in Oregon in the fall...
12
When other secretaries of state did the same thing and were not penalized, why should Mrs Clinton get different treatment? When the Bush White House deleted millions of emails with no comment, why does Mrs Clinton get different treatment? Why is the press just following the republican blow-up and not challenging that?
13
Friends have pointed out that a less well connected person might have gone to jail for acting as Hillary did. It is presumed that she MIGHT have exposed classified documents to the hackers of unfriendly nations. Well ! Let's consider the calculated mendacity of George W's administration in fabricating excuses to invade Iraq while totally circumventing the UN security council. What explains the curious lack of collective moral outrage against those worthies ? Why has nobody stood up to shake a fist in their direction and call for their prosecution for crimes against humanity? There are no "might haves" about the consequences of their actions except in the minds of the most dedicated deniers. The total destruction of a nation, the death and maiming of thousands of fine young American servicemen and women, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, the opportunistic rise of ISIS. The war profiteers have never been challenged or questioned, and the lying masterminds are living out their golden years in peace.
All we can do now is to choose the presidential candidate likely to cause less harm overall. Narcissism and windbaggery are qualities that might suit a despot leader of a tribal nation. Not a US President, at a time when intelligent strategy and collaborative planning are required to contain the demons that have been unleashed upon the world. Hillary is all we've got.
All we can do now is to choose the presidential candidate likely to cause less harm overall. Narcissism and windbaggery are qualities that might suit a despot leader of a tribal nation. Not a US President, at a time when intelligent strategy and collaborative planning are required to contain the demons that have been unleashed upon the world. Hillary is all we've got.
16
Now it no longer matters to me.
I have no interest in voting for anyone.
In Memory of Alton.
I have no interest in voting for anyone.
In Memory of Alton.
15
Financial industry criminals get away because it is next to impossible to "prove intent."
When did "ignorance" of the law become a valid excuse for elites and not for the rest of us?
When did "ignorance" of the law become a valid excuse for elites and not for the rest of us?
12
There is a saying that all good girls go to heaven and all bad girls have too much fun or may even end up as president of USA.
6
This is getting better than Game of Thrones. So many powerful people with so many agendas, each trying to outdo one another with reckless bravado. Bring on the dragons, or in the absence of these mythical creatures how about another Congressional hearing? Lots of smoke, but little fire.
7
The Clintons believe they have en entitlement. Never the less I shall vote for her over Trump who would be a disaster. What an Election. What a mess
5
To her supporters, she will be vindicated. To her opponents, it's more evidence that the Clinton's are above the law.
In other words, nothing has changed.
In other words, nothing has changed.
7
The best analysis I've read of the substance of Comey's announcement, by Alan Dershowitz:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/286614-did-f...
While Comey could find no justification for indicting Hillary, he deliberately and inappropriately gave the Republican party plenty of red meat to continue their attacks.
Do these people really want to see Trump in the White House? We're seeing the disgusting behavior of powerful white men who can't stand to see it any other way.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/286614-did-f...
While Comey could find no justification for indicting Hillary, he deliberately and inappropriately gave the Republican party plenty of red meat to continue their attacks.
Do these people really want to see Trump in the White House? We're seeing the disgusting behavior of powerful white men who can't stand to see it any other way.
12
Dershowitz is long past his expiration date. Funny how in an article about Comey exceedng his authority, he fails to cite any stautory or regulatory authority Comey exceeded. This is nothng but bluster.
4
The FBI should have announced its decision and left it at that. Comey's public scolding of Hillary in this political season was personal and vindictive and an unfortunate echo of this bumbling agency's injecting itself into America's political life, a place where it does not belong.
14
When I listened to Mr. Comey I thought he came across as really mad that he spent so much time on an investigation that produced so little. He had to find something after all the wasted man hours spent on this investigation. It wasn't partisanship, it was just much ado about very little.
12
Comey went beyond what an impartial officer of Justice should have said. He should never have started talking about the likelihood of the content of emails that can never be discovered and verified.
So since he himself said things that should not have been said in his position he clearly does not have the best judgment of what might be appropriate for any other official to have said. I am not going to take his word for it.
So since he himself said things that should not have been said in his position he clearly does not have the best judgment of what might be appropriate for any other official to have said. I am not going to take his word for it.
11
The Editorial Board misses the whole point of the FBI report: Hillary is seriously lacking in judgment, and certainly is not of the quality to be elevated to the presidency of the country. To further highlight her lack of judgments (there are many) one has to wonder at the honesty of the set up with Bill Clinton and the Attorney General and the Hillary meeting with the FBI before the report was issued in an apparent arrangement to try to pass off Hillary's lack of judgment as a mere nothing that did not warrant any charges. What a window into the machinations in Washington.
19
So, we now know that Hillary was extremely careless in dealing with national security information, and that she lied to the American people in defense her her careless actions. Hillary has also acknowledged her need to work on her lack of trustworthiness. So the next President of the United States will be a reckless, careless liar. We survived George W Bush, and I guess we will survive Hillary. But unlike W, with Hillary we know something about the extent of her carelessness and untrustworthiness before the election.
Ah, another four years of Clintonmania awaits us. The disbarred liar and the extremely careless liar. Hold on to your seats, it will be a bumpy ride.
Ah, another four years of Clintonmania awaits us. The disbarred liar and the extremely careless liar. Hold on to your seats, it will be a bumpy ride.
13
Why does Secretary Clinton get a pass on the intent aspect? The law clearly allows prosecution regardless of intent. Anyone else would have been prosecuted.
Rather than use precedent to excuse Ms. Clinton, her case should have set precedent showing that high ranking US officials are not above the law.
Let's be clear, it was well within the purview of the FBI I director to recommend prosecution.
Rather than use precedent to excuse Ms. Clinton, her case should have set precedent showing that high ranking US officials are not above the law.
Let's be clear, it was well within the purview of the FBI I director to recommend prosecution.
12
Don't think the FBI Director is doing his job, do you???
Don't you think he was tough enough, right? -- Well don't worry, just get ready to pay for another taxpayer-funded Republican-led witch-hunt.
Don't you think he was tough enough, right? -- Well don't worry, just get ready to pay for another taxpayer-funded Republican-led witch-hunt.
4
It's virtually impossible to come to the conclusion Comey did given the evidence and the facts he presented.
He concludes that Clinton was grossly negligent in her handling of classified and top secret materials. This is a textbook violation of 18 US Code Section 793. There is not legal standard for intent just gross negligence which is what Comey found. This should have been a clear cut indictment.
As far as other cases setting precedence re "other factors", there are more than a few cases where persons suffered legal consequences for far less. And, speaking of other factors, what about obstruction of justice? Destroying tens of thousands of e-mails doesn't constitute obstruction of justice.
Ultimately, there are larger issues here including:
- The AG and FBI make it very clear that Clinton didn't hesitate for a second to put the nation's security at risk so she could flout FOIA and other records statutes. This was not about convenience and it says a lot about the judgement and character of Ms. Clinton.
- The not insignificant issue of Ms. Clinton repeatedly lying and perjuring herself with statements that are now proven to be absolutely false. Again, the character issue looms large.
- The last issue: #NoOneShouldBeAboveTheLaw
He concludes that Clinton was grossly negligent in her handling of classified and top secret materials. This is a textbook violation of 18 US Code Section 793. There is not legal standard for intent just gross negligence which is what Comey found. This should have been a clear cut indictment.
As far as other cases setting precedence re "other factors", there are more than a few cases where persons suffered legal consequences for far less. And, speaking of other factors, what about obstruction of justice? Destroying tens of thousands of e-mails doesn't constitute obstruction of justice.
Ultimately, there are larger issues here including:
- The AG and FBI make it very clear that Clinton didn't hesitate for a second to put the nation's security at risk so she could flout FOIA and other records statutes. This was not about convenience and it says a lot about the judgement and character of Ms. Clinton.
- The not insignificant issue of Ms. Clinton repeatedly lying and perjuring herself with statements that are now proven to be absolutely false. Again, the character issue looms large.
- The last issue: #NoOneShouldBeAboveTheLaw
15
No, Comey did not conclude that Clinton was "grossly negligent". He used that phrase to explain what constitutes a violation of the federal statute. As Alan Dershowitz explained, "gross negligence is one of the statutory criteria for bringing a prosecution". The phrase he used to describe Clinton's handling of sensitive materials was "extremely careless".
2
Irrespective of the decision by the FBI not to prosecute, it shows that HRC was either a knave or a fool; sadly not a great look for POTUS.
If the Democratic Party is to stand any chance of prevailing in the 2016 presidential elections, they need to ditch HRC right now, and get someone eminently more electable.
The obvious alternative would be The Bern. But his vision is rather utopian, and sadly I doubt he would go more than a couple of rounds with The Donald.
What is needed is someone who is as rough and tough as The Donald, is similarly independently wealthy, and has demonstrative executive skills both in business and public service.
So, Ladies and Gentleman, it's time to persuade previous NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg to stand.
If the Democratic Party is to stand any chance of prevailing in the 2016 presidential elections, they need to ditch HRC right now, and get someone eminently more electable.
The obvious alternative would be The Bern. But his vision is rather utopian, and sadly I doubt he would go more than a couple of rounds with The Donald.
What is needed is someone who is as rough and tough as The Donald, is similarly independently wealthy, and has demonstrative executive skills both in business and public service.
So, Ladies and Gentleman, it's time to persuade previous NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg to stand.
2
Bernie would best Mr. Trump easily.
6
Since the examination of some 60,000 emails did not yield an indictment for Gowdy's GOP-squad, which depends on finding a string of Benghazi sequels to maintain its ratings and its funding, the squad's sponsors dreamed up the truly bizarrely spectacle of an FBI director reprimanding a presidential candidate.
Democrats must immediately empanel a select committee to discover whether Comey's reprimand of a citizen who is not one of his employees should be slowly, painstakingly, and very publicly characterized as an example of extreme carelessness and flawed judgment.
Democrats must immediately empanel a select committee to discover whether Comey's reprimand of a citizen who is not one of his employees should be slowly, painstakingly, and very publicly characterized as an example of extreme carelessness and flawed judgment.
6
I'm having a real hard time reconciling so many people so willing to overlook a 25 year record of connivance and mendacity in furtherance of a personal quest for wealth and power, with the notion we are a United States of America.
16
And I'm having a real hard time reconcilling so many people so willing to put a racist who is endorsed by a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan into the Oval Office, with the notion we are a United States if America.
4
Here's an idea. How about we conduct investigations of the email habits of every Republican member of Congress who had access to classified information during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (2009-2013).
Let's see what we find.
Let's see what we find.
13
Given that Hillary carries a lot of baggage from her private life, and has repeatedly lied recently, to exonerate her from "careless" handling of classifed material requires an explanation. If the Director had made a simple statement, we would have assumed he was bought off. That she should be elected president is frightening. Her clearance should be revoked.
11
Are you seriously saying that candidates should be judged by the baggage from their private lives???
Well, you will have a grand time when it comes to Donald Trump -- especially if you believe that someone who speaks-before-thinking is NOT a security risk.
Well, you will have a grand time when it comes to Donald Trump -- especially if you believe that someone who speaks-before-thinking is NOT a security risk.
4
To me, Hillary supporters have become so bewildering. Sometimes they seem to think she's Gidget--they'll teach her this newest cute moral lesson after her little adventure, which will send her on her way to bigger and better things. Or sometimes they just sound like psychologically battered spouses (or lovers) making twisted excuses for the latest insult from their narcissistic abuser, unable to admit that this is behavior we shouldn't be promoting--especially to the Presidency, of all things.
Oh and I'm not a Millennial, though I do have great respect for those young men and women, especially after this campaign: They seem to have gleaned my experience in the 90's working as a young woman lawyer in Washington when the Clintons reigned. And FYI, it was not a respectful atmosphere for young women, who were routinely characterized as "bimbos" in the Post if one of them threatened to derail the career of one of the precious Clintons. Does anyone ever think about the miasma that made in the city around them?
And yet there were many women lawyers working in DC with all kinds of expertise and integrity who kept at their jobs and wouldn't have betrayed the Sec of State office with quid quo qro donations had they been put in that position. Why don't we elevate those lesser known folks, with--gasp--good character perhaps--to national office?
In any case, I'm signing off, ready to look up Jill Stein and the other 3d party candidates.
Oh and I'm not a Millennial, though I do have great respect for those young men and women, especially after this campaign: They seem to have gleaned my experience in the 90's working as a young woman lawyer in Washington when the Clintons reigned. And FYI, it was not a respectful atmosphere for young women, who were routinely characterized as "bimbos" in the Post if one of them threatened to derail the career of one of the precious Clintons. Does anyone ever think about the miasma that made in the city around them?
And yet there were many women lawyers working in DC with all kinds of expertise and integrity who kept at their jobs and wouldn't have betrayed the Sec of State office with quid quo qro donations had they been put in that position. Why don't we elevate those lesser known folks, with--gasp--good character perhaps--to national office?
In any case, I'm signing off, ready to look up Jill Stein and the other 3d party candidates.
16
I still plan on writing in Bernie, but may look into Stein. One thing is certain, though: I will never vote for a democrat again. Not, at least, until they decide to get back to their roots. But, with DWS shilling for the payday lending industry, weakening all rules to come out of the CFPB to that end, and HRC being the most recent (and most obscenely) paid cheerleader for Wall Street, I don't see that happening in the next 4-8 years at a minimum.
8
Conviction for "gross negligence” does not require willful intent regarding the results of the negligence; only that the perpetrator was aware of the legal obligations and deliberately ignored them. Clinton did so, quite explicitly and knowingly, even after being advised by at least one other State Department individual that her behavior was in violation of policy.
Regarding security violations: Whether those emails was marked as classified or not -- and, it turns out, at least a few were so marked -- the decision to mark material as classified is an intellectual judgment by a knowledgeable reader (or the originator). For the Secretary of State to claim she was without that judgment is, at the least, frightening. That lack of judgment itself disqualifies her from the office of Commander in Chief.
The FBI is a finder of fact. Legal proceedings, if any, based upon their information is the responsibility of the Attorney General. If Loretta Lynch sincerely wishes to follow the law, she will ask her staff to prepare an indictment citing gross negligence.
Regarding security violations: Whether those emails was marked as classified or not -- and, it turns out, at least a few were so marked -- the decision to mark material as classified is an intellectual judgment by a knowledgeable reader (or the originator). For the Secretary of State to claim she was without that judgment is, at the least, frightening. That lack of judgment itself disqualifies her from the office of Commander in Chief.
The FBI is a finder of fact. Legal proceedings, if any, based upon their information is the responsibility of the Attorney General. If Loretta Lynch sincerely wishes to follow the law, she will ask her staff to prepare an indictment citing gross negligence.
12
Weird thing is that she said DOJ would follow what FBI recommends - even before Comey came out with the findings. Made me think she already made her mind up.
4
If I exceed the speed limit or fail to pay millions in owed taxes, has my "accidental" infraction that oh so conveniently coincided with my interests, have I not broken the law? Careless and especially inattentiveness are no excuse in our legal system, and merely pertain to levels of guilt (such as premeditated murder vs. Negligent homicide). In our legal system, you are considered to have known something if a reasonable person in that situation would have known it. A defendang is considered to have known something if s/he "knew or should have known."
By this standard did Clinton "know" the protocols of classified and sensitive information as to email use?
Did she say under oath (or any other context wherein falsehood would be punishable, as fraud or otherwise) that no documents or information in her emails was marked classified (at the time of sending) despite having been marked classified?
If any are answered affirmatively, our justice system has failed and are election is rigged. I say this as a Sanders supporter who woulive voted for hillary. But I must say it appears DOiJ stole this from Bernie.
By this standard did Clinton "know" the protocols of classified and sensitive information as to email use?
Did she say under oath (or any other context wherein falsehood would be punishable, as fraud or otherwise) that no documents or information in her emails was marked classified (at the time of sending) despite having been marked classified?
If any are answered affirmatively, our justice system has failed and are election is rigged. I say this as a Sanders supporter who woulive voted for hillary. But I must say it appears DOiJ stole this from Bernie.
6
You're definitely not a criminal lawyer because your analogies don't work. Exceeding the speed limit is not an intent crime and actually if a failure to pay taxes was completely unintentional, you would not be criminally prosecuted.
5
Ms. Clinton could be indicted on a lesser charge of "gross negligence," which does not require intent. Why was that not considered? But the other question, still not answered by her, was why she chose to use a private server without prior approval. I'm not buying the "convenience" rational. After all, even when a senator purportedly representing New York, she spent most of her time in D.C. There is certainly more to this, from a woman who has a long history of conducting business in secrecy and having "unreleased" transcripts.
Granted that Hillary showed very poor judgment in allowing this email fiasco, it still actually presents her with an opportunity. Her opportunity is to quickly show the American people she can accept responsibility for mistakes and learn from them. She could easily cement her advantage over Trump by acknowledging this error in judgment, emphasizing how essential the absolute security of our govt electronic communications is and announcing the formation of a group of top national experts to advise her on how we can further strengthen the security of those communications in the future. In stead of making excuses, her showing some humility, mea culpa and willingness to learn would go miles in winning over many of the doubters in the electorate. Alas, the time frame left for this smarter response is fleeting!
2
Now supposed budget-conscious "Speaker" Paul Ryan plans to waste even more of OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars and extend this democracy-destroying witch-hunt by calling the FBI director and Attorney General to testify? It is not acceptable and I just e-mailed him telling him to STOP WASTING OUR MONEY. Concerned readers please write, telephone, e-mail and/or tweet him today demanding that he stop this destructive behavior. Here is the information:
Speaker Paul Ryan contact information:
United States House of Representatives
1233 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4901
DC Phone: 202-225-3031
DC Fax: 202-225-3393
Contact Representative Ryan: http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
(This link may not work – if not go to www.speaker.gov and follow the links to contact)
Twitter @SpeakerRyan
WWW Homepage: http://paulryan.house.gov/
Fulltime District Offices:
Janesville Office
20 South Main Street, Suite 10
Janesville, WI 53545
Phone: (608) 752-4050
Fax: (608) 752-4711
Kenosha Office
5031 7th Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53140
Phone: (262) 654-1901
Fax: (262) 654-2156
Racine Office
216 6th Street
Racine, WI 53403
Phone: (262) 637-0510
Fax: (262) 637-5689
Speaker Paul Ryan contact information:
United States House of Representatives
1233 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4901
DC Phone: 202-225-3031
DC Fax: 202-225-3393
Contact Representative Ryan: http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
(This link may not work – if not go to www.speaker.gov and follow the links to contact)
Twitter @SpeakerRyan
WWW Homepage: http://paulryan.house.gov/
Fulltime District Offices:
Janesville Office
20 South Main Street, Suite 10
Janesville, WI 53545
Phone: (608) 752-4050
Fax: (608) 752-4711
Kenosha Office
5031 7th Avenue
Kenosha, WI 53140
Phone: (262) 654-1901
Fax: (262) 654-2156
Racine Office
216 6th Street
Racine, WI 53403
Phone: (262) 637-0510
Fax: (262) 637-5689
8
Thank you for the contact info I will ask them to continue the hunt.
3
Suddenly Dems are worried about overspending?
The jokes write themselves.
The jokes write themselves.
6
In case you haven't noticed, Ryan - and other republicans - only care about what paying constituents have to say. (Same as the Dem establishment) So, you might want to include a donation with your phone call to get them to act.
6
IMHO, most of government lacks a consistent email policy. Perhaps President Clinton will provide uniform guidelines for government email and data handling -- something that eluded previous administrations.
Perhaps, she will announce her new policy now, so everyone understands her commitment.
Perhaps, she will announce her new policy now, so everyone understands her commitment.
8
As someone who has been in and out of federal service for decades, I can tell you that there is a consistent email policy throughout the federal government. Indeed, federal employees are trained yearly on cybersecurity (and Clinton would not have been exempt from such training). So while it may seem from the outside that the regs are inconsistent and confusing -- an interpretation encouraged by Clinton and her people -- the rules are made crystal clear to feds and understanding and complying with them is part of the job. No excuses.
19
i worked in three federal agencies and knew of practices in three others, and two employee unions. there was no uniform practice.
3
I fired the gun him but did not intend to kill the deceased is not a defense. Comey knows that. The natural result of your actions is considered intended.
I was ignorant about servers and how they worked. I did not listen to intelligence briefings at the State Department. I bulled ahead...
I was ignorant about servers and how they worked. I did not listen to intelligence briefings at the State Department. I bulled ahead...
5
After all the maneuvering by the ruling class, did anyone really think they would let Senator Sanders take the helm? An indictment was never in the cards. Now, a president Trump is another thing. Anyone but Bernie.
The 1% has spoken.
The 1% has spoken.
7
James Comey looked uncomfortable making the announcement that Hillary Clinton and her immediate staff were extremely careless in handling her emails but he could find no precedent for prosecuting her! This is not believable. Hillary Clinton and her staff are never careless in doing anything - she is the poster girl for micro-management and always has been. She and her staff chose to do it - valuing what they thought would be privacy rather than following the rules. Despite her bad judgement, Clinton would still be less undesirable than Donald Trump as president.
The FBI was hamstrung. AG Loretta Lynch knew that whoever made the announcement would be criticized - rightfully criticized. But now we know the rest of the story behind her "casual" tarmac meeting on July 1 with her old friend and colleague Bill Clinton. The meeting and the criticism which followed gave Loretta cover to recuse herself from the prosecution decision. This left the legal decision of whether or not to prosecute on the shoulders of James Comey. He took it like a man.
Donald Trump is right about how wrong this was, even though he exaggerates and distorts so much that it is hard to find the truth in his bombast.
Could Super Delegates get rid of Hillary and chose Elizabeth/Pocohantas for their candidate at their upcoming convention? Could Hillary withdraw as a candidate to spend more time with her family? Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah...
The FBI was hamstrung. AG Loretta Lynch knew that whoever made the announcement would be criticized - rightfully criticized. But now we know the rest of the story behind her "casual" tarmac meeting on July 1 with her old friend and colleague Bill Clinton. The meeting and the criticism which followed gave Loretta cover to recuse herself from the prosecution decision. This left the legal decision of whether or not to prosecute on the shoulders of James Comey. He took it like a man.
Donald Trump is right about how wrong this was, even though he exaggerates and distorts so much that it is hard to find the truth in his bombast.
Could Super Delegates get rid of Hillary and chose Elizabeth/Pocohantas for their candidate at their upcoming convention? Could Hillary withdraw as a candidate to spend more time with her family? Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah...
7
Obviously you're an orangutan supporter. Good luck with that.
5
Not a Hillary fan but this is a "no harm, no foul" situation.
More important, regardless of her unworthy motives we were lucky she used her private server and not the government's (a/k/a "F Troop") because we would all be reading them on WikiLeaks or Snowden's site.
Better to be lucky than good.
More important, regardless of her unworthy motives we were lucky she used her private server and not the government's (a/k/a "F Troop") because we would all be reading them on WikiLeaks or Snowden's site.
Better to be lucky than good.
13
Comey's statement was political. As such it was an inappropriate attempt by a federal agency to sway a democratic election. This makes me question the ethics of the FBI not Mrs. Clinton.
14
"FBI''s Critique of Clinton is Ready-Made Attack Ad." So the Times already knows the narrative of the next 4 months. The racist demagogue will pound HRC for her dishonesty and incompetence. A woman with all of the advantages, privileges, name recognition, and experience possible lost 22 states to an unknown senator from Vermont and is now statistically tied with the Republican nominee, the vilest human being on the planet. We're all breathing a sigh of relief that she wasn't indicted. I feel like an old Andy Borowitz headline "Bar Officially Cannot be Lowered." Why are this newspaper and the Democratic party committed to this woman? We have the opportunity to nominate a man whose middle names might as well be Authenticity and Honesty, yet we insist on nominating the most hated Democratic presidential candidate in history. Bernie Sanders (who beat HRC 8:1 among young people) represents the future of the Democratic Party and the US, yet the Times and the rest of the corporate media will continue to shame his supporters for their reluctance to climb aboard the Hillary bandwagon. I'm a lifelong Democrat who will stick a clothespin on my nose and pull the lever for her, but why should first-time voters (who have friends rotting in jail for marijuana possession) feel anything but contempt for a party that shoves a criminal down their throats? HRC is this generation's Nixon.
5
This just confirms what everyone already suspected. The political elite are unaccountable. I will never understand folk who continue to support the like of Hillary even though she is proven incompetent, and a proven serial liar.
13
This incident reveals a glaring weakness in Hillary's governing and management style: She surrounds herself with "yes, ma'am, anything you say, ma'am" advisors who do nothing to curb her excesses.
On the face of it, it was ridiculous of Hillary to set up a private, separate email system when an approved government system already existed and was expected to be used for the sake of following government regulations. Yet none of her advisors confronted her with this obvious truth.
Why not? Because Hillary values loyalty, support for her ideas, above constructive opposition, and that's how she picks her advisors.
We're all human and make mistakes. Therefore we all need advisors who can stop you from making at least some of those mistakes. Hillary doesn't want those kind of questioning advisors on her team. She needs to change that attitude if she is to be an effective president.
On the face of it, it was ridiculous of Hillary to set up a private, separate email system when an approved government system already existed and was expected to be used for the sake of following government regulations. Yet none of her advisors confronted her with this obvious truth.
Why not? Because Hillary values loyalty, support for her ideas, above constructive opposition, and that's how she picks her advisors.
We're all human and make mistakes. Therefore we all need advisors who can stop you from making at least some of those mistakes. Hillary doesn't want those kind of questioning advisors on her team. She needs to change that attitude if she is to be an effective president.
14
Good, and correct, observation. There was a great article this week in Vanity Fair about the yes-man and ultimate Clinton sycophant Sidney Blumenthal. Hillary tried to hire Blumenthal at State, but Obama said no because David Axelrod and others threatened to quit if Blumenthal was hired. Imagine that: well respected, senior advisors to Obama thought so poorly of Blumenthal they threatened to quit if he was brought on board. Yet Hillary wanted to hire him.
7
Having spent a great deal of my career working with software products built on top of email servers, I find Mr. Comey's rebuke valid only if he had reason to believe that Mrs. Clinton had sufficient knowledge of cryptography, email protocols, and global networking. The rebuke more properly should be directed at her IT staff, and perhaps even at State Department IT staff, for not insuring that she used properly protected servers and software.
It's also necessary to look at the cyberthreat targets popular during that time period, and the amount of attention being paid to those threats: less than now, more targeted at government itself, and little to no attention being paid in the press.
In short, I believe Mr. Comey's rebuke was political in nature. His legal findings, however, given his evident desire to find fault with Mrs. Clinton, are sterling.
It's also necessary to look at the cyberthreat targets popular during that time period, and the amount of attention being paid to those threats: less than now, more targeted at government itself, and little to no attention being paid in the press.
In short, I believe Mr. Comey's rebuke was political in nature. His legal findings, however, given his evident desire to find fault with Mrs. Clinton, are sterling.
25
Best comment of the day!
3
In Comey's nearly 2500 words this is what comes out:
"we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked"
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
The Republicans, and to an extend Sanders and even the Times have attempted to apply a unique criteria for prosecuting and even criticizing Clinton. It won't work. I didn't stick. Everything here out is correctly going to come across as purely partisan politics.
Healy, Chozik, and other Times reporters who were fed this 'scoop' from the right were gamed and they along with the Times has been overcompensating ever since. The Washington Post has been much clearer on what a petty, tawdry issue this has been from the start.
"we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked"
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
The Republicans, and to an extend Sanders and even the Times have attempted to apply a unique criteria for prosecuting and even criticizing Clinton. It won't work. I didn't stick. Everything here out is correctly going to come across as purely partisan politics.
Healy, Chozik, and other Times reporters who were fed this 'scoop' from the right were gamed and they along with the Times has been overcompensating ever since. The Washington Post has been much clearer on what a petty, tawdry issue this has been from the start.
11
It was FBI Director Comey's responsibility to determine and report that no charges to be brought as a result of the investigation. The editorializing and rebuke he added were inappropriate, to put it mildly. It was partisan and hostile and had no place in his report. Having read that he was being considered as a Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2020, I am not surprised by his comments.
13
Too bad it's too late to choose someone else. Oh, wait a minute...
17
Clearly, Hillary broke the rules about email usage; for that she deserves a scolding. However, the charge that she endangered national security by using a private server instead of the State Department's is based on the assumption that government servers are inherently more secure than private ones. Not only is evidence for this assumption lacking, there is ample evidence to the contrary. (For example: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/... It's particularly ironic to hear Republicans, who are constantly extolling the superiority of the private sector, making this charge.
11
Mr. Comey justified what he called his “unusual statement” in the name of political “transparency.” But by declaring that no prosecutor should indict Mrs. Clinton, he also hurt the cause of political accountability. The decision to indict or not rests with prosecutors, not the FBI, as Mr. Comey noted. But now prosecutors can merely point to Mr. Comey’s public statement to justify taking no action. He could have passed on his evidence quietly, but instead he acted like a prosecutor while denying that he is one.
Mr. Comey spent nearly all of his media appearance laying out the multiple ways in which Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for official State Department business had violated official policy and jeopardized America’s secrets. Yet at the end he declined to recommend prosecution because her behavior was merely “extremely careless” rather than “grossly negligent” as the law requires. This is a rhetorical distinction without a difference that deserves to be mocked.
By a reasonable person’s standards, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to use a private server, to give her aides access to it, to email classified information on it, to fail to secure it, and to use it in hostile territory was grossly negligent. We can’t wait for the next minion prosecuted for mishandling secrets to invoke the “extremely careless” defense.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-clinton-standard-1467759942
Mr. Comey spent nearly all of his media appearance laying out the multiple ways in which Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for official State Department business had violated official policy and jeopardized America’s secrets. Yet at the end he declined to recommend prosecution because her behavior was merely “extremely careless” rather than “grossly negligent” as the law requires. This is a rhetorical distinction without a difference that deserves to be mocked.
By a reasonable person’s standards, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to use a private server, to give her aides access to it, to email classified information on it, to fail to secure it, and to use it in hostile territory was grossly negligent. We can’t wait for the next minion prosecuted for mishandling secrets to invoke the “extremely careless” defense.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-clinton-standard-1467759942
6
Sad that it takes the FBI to publicly question Clinton's competence, judgement and integrity. Interesting that these are qualities that she runs on with little criticism from supporters or mainstream media. She manages to skate by through the same tactics that the Clintons have used for decades. They manage to deflect so that we end up questioning the scandal and not the participants. She made a reckless decision about her emails yet the campaign makes it about whether or not it was a crime. She received millions from banks yet the campaign makes it about the transcripts of her speeches. The American people are sitting here with enough information to question Clinton's judgement and/or integrity yet we compartmentalize these things into the "scandal" category which many will not let impact their opinion of her. If someone came to a job interview along with a report like the one issued by the FBI about Clinton, you wouldn't hire them because their resume looked good.
What's fascinating is that both Clintons have done things in the workplace that most of us would be fired for (she with emails and he with an intern), yet somehow both might get to be President.
What's fascinating is that both Clintons have done things in the workplace that most of us would be fired for (she with emails and he with an intern), yet somehow both might get to be President.
20
Sad that after coming to the legal conclusion that Hillary Clinton did nothing to warrant being charged or prosecuted, it felt it incumbent to register it's speculation and opinion while realizing they have no place in such an investigation: ''Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the F.B.I. found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.'' - James Comey
3
What a joke! Any government official who sends "top secret" information through an email is an idiot. That is what couriers or coded back channel lines are for. This is just politics as usual. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Of course Scooter Libbey unilaterally outed Valerie Phlame where real people, CIA assets who worked with her, were killed.
14
The most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi. We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.
So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi. We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.
11
For better or for worse, this HC supporter sums up pretty well the reaction of her supporters:
"I'm so sick of this. Hillary screwed up. I don't care. I want her..."
"I'm so sick of this. Hillary screwed up. I don't care. I want her..."
8
I find it perfectly believable that Clinton did not fully appreciate the gravity of the security risks she took, and likely acted out of convenience and personal preference. Hillary has never claimed to have special technological expertise, and even those in government who do claim such expertise (such as Ted "series of tubes" Stevens) are often, in fact, incredibly unsophisticated by civilian standards. That's fine. But I don't want a president who doesn't take these technological issues seriously. That's not the world we live in any more.
Hillary doesn't have to ask for forgiveness, but she should speak about her technological advisors, the role they will have in her decisions on matters like cybersecurity and other topics requiring particular savvy (net neutrality etc.), and what her strategy will be for making the kinds of sophisticated technological decisions that the office of the president requires, even as she herself cannot claim to always hold the answers. Candidates parade their chosen experts in matters of the economy and foreign policy, and I want technology consultants for all the major candidates as well. If Hillary does this, she's come out of the whole affair on top as far as I'm concerned.
Hillary doesn't have to ask for forgiveness, but she should speak about her technological advisors, the role they will have in her decisions on matters like cybersecurity and other topics requiring particular savvy (net neutrality etc.), and what her strategy will be for making the kinds of sophisticated technological decisions that the office of the president requires, even as she herself cannot claim to always hold the answers. Candidates parade their chosen experts in matters of the economy and foreign policy, and I want technology consultants for all the major candidates as well. If Hillary does this, she's come out of the whole affair on top as far as I'm concerned.
13
this whole episode reminds me of a quote:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- forget who said it.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- forget who said it.
5
Suppose certain information is classified, for example a drone program operating in Pakistan. Suppose the operation of the drone program becomes public knowledge when the drone operation is reported in the newspapers. After the operation becomes known to the general public does it still retain its classified status?
3
Sure, particularly any details about the decision process or participants, and especially if something went wrong.
4
Hillary is not the first Secretay of State to do this. Where is the lynch mob for Condeleeza Rice or Colin Powell? She had precedent and to accuse her of an illicit intent you must level the same accusations against Rice and Powell. If Trump intends to jail Hillary he must do the same to Rice and Powell.
12
No. They didn't--in violation of government rules--set up private, unsecured servers in their homes and run their emails through it. Rice didn't even use email, so as to protect sensitive info.
9
@N B:
The "lynch mob" you have been hoping for was fully available and ready to do your bidding after the liberals took over the entire goverment for two years in 2009. But they found no evidence and had no reason to investigate or accuse.
But HIllary is the first secretary to have her own server in her home, and later lie about emails when found out. Comey clearly listed her lies. Just listen again to what she said, repeatedly, and the exact Comey's rebuttals.
The "lynch mob" you have been hoping for was fully available and ready to do your bidding after the liberals took over the entire goverment for two years in 2009. But they found no evidence and had no reason to investigate or accuse.
But HIllary is the first secretary to have her own server in her home, and later lie about emails when found out. Comey clearly listed her lies. Just listen again to what she said, repeatedly, and the exact Comey's rebuttals.
3
Mrs. Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, and in any kind of a normal, functioning democratic republic shouldn't be allowed within shouting distance of the office of the presidency. I won't vote for her, but because I'm a Californian, I can safely cast my write-in vote for anyone I think would make a better president than Mrs. Clinton. If I lived in a swing state, I'd have a perpetual headache because I would simply have to vote for her.
And I wouldn't want to vote for her. First, she brings Bill back into the White House. Yuck! Second, she not only get foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, she brags about it. Yuck! All over the globe, she seems to think War is the answer. Again, yuck! There's the small matter of her speeches to Wall Street firms, the transcripts of which she won't let me see.
Her judgment is faulty, her ethics are faulty, her competence is questionable. The only reason her candidacy is viable at all is that the other guy is so much worse.
Third Party? I'm ready. Boy, am I ready.
And I wouldn't want to vote for her. First, she brings Bill back into the White House. Yuck! Second, she not only get foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, she brags about it. Yuck! All over the globe, she seems to think War is the answer. Again, yuck! There's the small matter of her speeches to Wall Street firms, the transcripts of which she won't let me see.
Her judgment is faulty, her ethics are faulty, her competence is questionable. The only reason her candidacy is viable at all is that the other guy is so much worse.
Third Party? I'm ready. Boy, am I ready.
29
Without knowing any of the facts.............what do you think the probability was on Hillary getting indicted?
That is why people do not trust government officials or business leaders for that matter.
That is why people do not trust government officials or business leaders for that matter.
11
I'm wondering how much this episode has or will hurt Hillary's candidacy against Trump. It's been known for months that she used a private email server and that some of her emails may have violated State Dept. security. Comey, who is, let it be said, is a Republican known for his probity, but his performance yesterday was bizarre, especially when he opined that Hillary's server may have been hacked (note the word "may). What's up with that?
Bottom line: Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a flawed individual, someone who cuts corners and has a love/hate relationship with truth. Yet she's been in a Groundhog Day gauntlet for years, under extreme pressure, and she's survived attack after attack. Trump, by contrast, has not. As a private individual (albeit with a loud and vocal public persona) Trump can shield his mistakes and problems; Hillary lives in the public space -- her choice -- and she has learned to live with the consequences of her decisions, good and bad.
I will vote for her in November because, with all her flaws, Hillary has an inner strength that has been forged in adversity. Her opponent should not be let anywhere near the White House or the levers of power because what we do know about him above all is that he is always covering his tracks and trying to reset the record to his benefit. Hillary knows who she is; Trump is constantly making himself up, and that's far more dangerous to the nation's future.
Bottom line: Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a flawed individual, someone who cuts corners and has a love/hate relationship with truth. Yet she's been in a Groundhog Day gauntlet for years, under extreme pressure, and she's survived attack after attack. Trump, by contrast, has not. As a private individual (albeit with a loud and vocal public persona) Trump can shield his mistakes and problems; Hillary lives in the public space -- her choice -- and she has learned to live with the consequences of her decisions, good and bad.
I will vote for her in November because, with all her flaws, Hillary has an inner strength that has been forged in adversity. Her opponent should not be let anywhere near the White House or the levers of power because what we do know about him above all is that he is always covering his tracks and trying to reset the record to his benefit. Hillary knows who she is; Trump is constantly making himself up, and that's far more dangerous to the nation's future.
13
Adversity?
Hillary, like Trump, was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She grew up in affluent, Chicago suburbs, attended private schools, graduated from Yale Law School... Blah, blah, blah. And these days, she is, like Trump, is a "one-percenter," making tens of millions of dollars in gross annual income and being more detached from real people than ever.
Most of the adversity she has faced has been of her and her husband's own making. The Whitewater scandal was her deal gone bad. The Lewinsky scandal was of Bill's making. Benghazi and the emails? Once again, she has been her own worst enemy. In every one of these issues, it was the Clintons' collective bad judgment calls that landed them in hot water. The GOP didn't create the scandals. Their foolishness was/is only inbeing too quick to embrace them. But the long record of bad calls, bad judgment, and otherwise irresponsibility is theirs... more frequently her issue, in recent events.
Hillary, like Trump, was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She grew up in affluent, Chicago suburbs, attended private schools, graduated from Yale Law School... Blah, blah, blah. And these days, she is, like Trump, is a "one-percenter," making tens of millions of dollars in gross annual income and being more detached from real people than ever.
Most of the adversity she has faced has been of her and her husband's own making. The Whitewater scandal was her deal gone bad. The Lewinsky scandal was of Bill's making. Benghazi and the emails? Once again, she has been her own worst enemy. In every one of these issues, it was the Clintons' collective bad judgment calls that landed them in hot water. The GOP didn't create the scandals. Their foolishness was/is only inbeing too quick to embrace them. But the long record of bad calls, bad judgment, and otherwise irresponsibility is theirs... more frequently her issue, in recent events.
9
There was a famous National Lampoon cover displaying a pooch with a pistol pointed at its head and the caption "If you don't buy this magazine, well shoot this dog". That is what this election has become, an act of extortion, where if you don't vote for Hillary, i.e, the guy with the gun, we'll elect Trump. Nobody in a democracy should have their arm twisted to make a choice.
17
This is July. Americans will be sick of hearing about HRC's e-mail carelessness next month. Most Americans are careless with their own e-mail. Even if you're careful as can be hackers still get them. It is a non-issue, especially when considering that her rival is about as qualified to be president as a Larry, Curly or Moe.
8
I'm no Hillary fan – having long felt she's mediocre at best, honest or not – but I part company with those who say Bill Clinton shouldn't have pardoned Marc Rich:
"Mr. Clinton infamously pardoned many people he shouldn't have, including ... a financial scoundral who (and whose wife) was a donor."
I looked into the Marc Rich case at the time, and I have to agree with Bill Clinton that he (Rich) was unfairly prosecuted. I have no doubt that Rich got Clinton's attention because he and his ex-wife were prominent donors. But on the merits, I think Bill Clinton did the right thing by pardoning Rich.
"Mr. Clinton infamously pardoned many people he shouldn't have, including ... a financial scoundral who (and whose wife) was a donor."
I looked into the Marc Rich case at the time, and I have to agree with Bill Clinton that he (Rich) was unfairly prosecuted. I have no doubt that Rich got Clinton's attention because he and his ex-wife were prominent donors. But on the merits, I think Bill Clinton did the right thing by pardoning Rich.
2
Hillary Clinton was wrong about her personal email server, and she was wrong about invading Iraq and removing Sadam Hussein from power. She was wrong about Libya. But despite her lack of judgment and behavior indicating that she considers herself above the law, she is not as bad a presidential candidate as Donald Trump. Does democracy still work in America? Why do we have to chose the lesser of two evils?
Both major parties were wrong about the Middle East. Both were wrong about how to distribute wealth more equally in the US, although at least the Democrats address the problem to begin to solve it.
How could we do better with our political candidates? Get money out of politics - then maybe more smart decent people would run for office and be able to get elected.
Bring Edward Snowden back, pardon him, and ask him to run the security system for the State Department.
Hillary Clinton could decline the nomination at the Democratic Convention and suggest that Elizabeth Warren be nominated instead.
We need to think bigger and clearer. We keep going back to the same old tired "leaders" and expecting a different result. Anyone who thinks our foreign relationships are going to improve under another Clinton presidency can't learn from experience - just like Bill and Hillary.
Both major parties were wrong about the Middle East. Both were wrong about how to distribute wealth more equally in the US, although at least the Democrats address the problem to begin to solve it.
How could we do better with our political candidates? Get money out of politics - then maybe more smart decent people would run for office and be able to get elected.
Bring Edward Snowden back, pardon him, and ask him to run the security system for the State Department.
Hillary Clinton could decline the nomination at the Democratic Convention and suggest that Elizabeth Warren be nominated instead.
We need to think bigger and clearer. We keep going back to the same old tired "leaders" and expecting a different result. Anyone who thinks our foreign relationships are going to improve under another Clinton presidency can't learn from experience - just like Bill and Hillary.
10
Mr Comey's statement has a very clear partisan message, kowtowing to the GOPs not wanting to alienate them for not finding any legal misconduct by Hillary Clinton, not considering the fact that emails have been overly misclassified from top secret to confidential, a pervasive problem in the complex bureaucracy across the government agencies. His indictment of Mrs. Clinton being "reckless" should be an indictment of everyone working in the government, they all did the same thing and the only reason why they didn't get investigated is because they are not running for President of the United States, Mrs. Clinton is. Mr. Comey, shame on you!!
13
Is it true that servers at State Department were actually hacked, and that there is no evidence that Hillary's server was attacked? In other words, her choice of private email server was safer in the end. Can someone confirm or rebuff that?
11
Since the FBI evidently cant crack a locked private smartphone it is possible Hillaries locked private server was MORE secure than government macines known to been already hacked.
Why isnt she applauded for possible extra vigilance in defence of secrecy?
What documents were marked secret? Did they include
Information also appearing elsewhere , as in the pages of the New York Times?
And what did previous secretaries Rice Powell and Albright send on their emails?
Lets have full disclosure not innuendos.
Why isnt she applauded for possible extra vigilance in defence of secrecy?
What documents were marked secret? Did they include
Information also appearing elsewhere , as in the pages of the New York Times?
And what did previous secretaries Rice Powell and Albright send on their emails?
Lets have full disclosure not innuendos.
11
The damaging part was when Clinton hid or deleted a collection of "private" emails vetted by her lawyer. Once she decided to mix business with personal, the personal becomes the property of the state.
12
As another digitally challenged woman who used to have a security clearance, I can see a scenario where the following occurred:
Newly appointed high level government official (NAHLGO) has used a Blackberry for all digital activities for the past 20 years. Government agency computer geek (GACG) arrives to help her set up her office computer and email system and tries to teach her how to navigate the system. Government system is 30 years old, slow as molasses, non-Blackberry friendly, and given to sudden crashes. NAHLGO can't type on a keyboard, and keeps accidentally connecting to random URL's or crashing the system when she tries to use a laptop. In frustration she sticks the government issue laptop in her bottom desk drawer and reverts to her Blackberry and private server. Every once in a while GACG shows up and tries to suggest that she really ought learn how to use the agency's system, but she is too busy trying to deal with Iran and its nukes, so she waves him off and tells her assistant to deal with this. Somebody gives her another mobile device which connects to the agency system, but it doesn't work any better than the laptop and so she sticks it in the bottom of her bag, uses it occasionally for a while, but eventually just gives up on it. Meanwhile, agency emails are getting hacked by the Russians, and even though she is being crucified for using a private server, she kind of feels vindicated. But she can't say that, out of loyalty to her agency.
Newly appointed high level government official (NAHLGO) has used a Blackberry for all digital activities for the past 20 years. Government agency computer geek (GACG) arrives to help her set up her office computer and email system and tries to teach her how to navigate the system. Government system is 30 years old, slow as molasses, non-Blackberry friendly, and given to sudden crashes. NAHLGO can't type on a keyboard, and keeps accidentally connecting to random URL's or crashing the system when she tries to use a laptop. In frustration she sticks the government issue laptop in her bottom desk drawer and reverts to her Blackberry and private server. Every once in a while GACG shows up and tries to suggest that she really ought learn how to use the agency's system, but she is too busy trying to deal with Iran and its nukes, so she waves him off and tells her assistant to deal with this. Somebody gives her another mobile device which connects to the agency system, but it doesn't work any better than the laptop and so she sticks it in the bottom of her bag, uses it occasionally for a while, but eventually just gives up on it. Meanwhile, agency emails are getting hacked by the Russians, and even though she is being crucified for using a private server, she kind of feels vindicated. But she can't say that, out of loyalty to her agency.
7
Interesting scenario, unfortunately that's not the FBI's Director's take on it. She was Secretary of State, not an office pool secretary. If they still have them.
5
Wow! Hillary Clinton is not perfect. Unlike Donald Trump's characterization of himself.
HRC said she made a mistake. Trump says he has never made a mistake.
W. will, to this day, will never admit the Iraq war was a mistake. Seems like Republicans think they are perfect and never make mistakes.
HRC said she made a mistake. Trump says he has never made a mistake.
W. will, to this day, will never admit the Iraq war was a mistake. Seems like Republicans think they are perfect and never make mistakes.
11
As evidenced by past administrations, there is a lack of clear policy and enforcement when it comes to the proper security of communications and the retention of public documents a gaping hole open to malicious behavior. This isn't 1994, the internet has changed and the risks are enormous. Congress and appointees may not be capable of understanding it - but they must submit to proper uses of communication technology where matters of state are concerned. Personal convenience is not a valid excuse when real risks are involved - and personally I'm angry that public records are deleted by administrations of both parties - such reckless behavior smacks of plausible deniability. Clinton is a smart politician - it's astonishing she would hand Republicans such a gift when the she and her staff could have easily followed simple IT protocols for proper security and document retention.
2
Anyone in any realm of competition should abide by the credo of never providing fuel for opponents. The Clintons can't ever seem to understand that. From Bill's behavior in White House, and more recently, his bone-headed (pun intended!) meeting with Loretta Lynch, to Hillary's e-mails, it's no wonder they are constantly targets of the Right.
Even with a damaged reputation, Hillary will likely prevail in the election but only because her opponent's a bigoted buffoon with the intellectual aptitude and a reasoning skills of a fifth grader. Still, it might be closer than many think, reflecting more on her lack of trustworthiness and likability than support for the ranting clown she's against.
Even with a damaged reputation, Hillary will likely prevail in the election but only because her opponent's a bigoted buffoon with the intellectual aptitude and a reasoning skills of a fifth grader. Still, it might be closer than many think, reflecting more on her lack of trustworthiness and likability than support for the ranting clown she's against.
6
If Clinton did this as SOS, will she do it again as President?
She says she won't, but I must admit I do wonder. Certainly not enough to vote for Trump, but there must be SOMEONE out there better than Hillary Clinton! Even though voting for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote if you're trying to elect a President, it can be useful for "sending a message."
She says she won't, but I must admit I do wonder. Certainly not enough to vote for Trump, but there must be SOMEONE out there better than Hillary Clinton! Even though voting for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote if you're trying to elect a President, it can be useful for "sending a message."
8
"It was actually highly inappropriate for Comey to rebuke Clinton and speculate that hostile governments "might" have accessed her server."
Whether or not Comey should have mentioned that, the American public certainly had a right to assume their Secretary of State wouldn't be running her official business through a private server in her basement. Foreign governments often try to get the Secretary of State's emails, and often they try not to let us know they've done so. You can "pretty this up" as much as you like, but what Hillary Clinton did was almost unbelievably inappropriate. I'd drop the "almost" if it hadn't actually happened. We'll never know whether Russia, China, North Korea, all of the above, or some other government, hacked her private server, but they probably jumped for joy when they saw her email address and realized she was using a private server for official business. We'll never know, but my hunch is it took the hackers about 15 minutes to get all of her emails after that.
Whether or not Comey should have mentioned that, the American public certainly had a right to assume their Secretary of State wouldn't be running her official business through a private server in her basement. Foreign governments often try to get the Secretary of State's emails, and often they try not to let us know they've done so. You can "pretty this up" as much as you like, but what Hillary Clinton did was almost unbelievably inappropriate. I'd drop the "almost" if it hadn't actually happened. We'll never know whether Russia, China, North Korea, all of the above, or some other government, hacked her private server, but they probably jumped for joy when they saw her email address and realized she was using a private server for official business. We'll never know, but my hunch is it took the hackers about 15 minutes to get all of her emails after that.
5
Isn't this really just a bunch of old news? We all knew Clinton used email inappropriately, but nobody thought it was an intentional or calculated way to get around regulations or laws. IF this is the greatest misconduct she can get tied to for her time in public life - that she misused email, she would get little more than a letter to her personnel file in most businesses.
The political questions is: Does it matter? Or more precisely, can you imagine in your remotest dreams that Trump will or would comply with this type of rule if he was President?
I didn't think so! Thus, this can not be a meaningful issue for the campaign as it is impossible for a reasonable person to believe Trump would act better (or for that matter, is acting better).
The political questions is: Does it matter? Or more precisely, can you imagine in your remotest dreams that Trump will or would comply with this type of rule if he was President?
I didn't think so! Thus, this can not be a meaningful issue for the campaign as it is impossible for a reasonable person to believe Trump would act better (or for that matter, is acting better).
9
Nothing is unbreachable for the Clintons -- no rule, no code of ethics, no principle of action or personal integrity, not even the law. Anything goes in the pursuit of more and more power, money and influence, even our own national security and the interests of the state. As if this isn't bad enough, they have a large base of supporters, volunteers and paid posters and opinion makers for whom nothing the Clintons do is a mistake. As a collective, the Clintons and their fanatic base are truly tiresome and repulsive.
When a Democratic politician screws up, their supporters point to instances when Republican politicians got away with it. The converse is true as well. This kind of mindless partisanship coupled with lack of shared core values and lack of adherence even to ethics, integrity and the law have made a mess of our country -- our children and grandchildren are going to pay dearly.
When a Democratic politician screws up, their supporters point to instances when Republican politicians got away with it. The converse is true as well. This kind of mindless partisanship coupled with lack of shared core values and lack of adherence even to ethics, integrity and the law have made a mess of our country -- our children and grandchildren are going to pay dearly.
9
I wonder what Comey's comments would have been if Hillary were a republican. Something like "although she and her staff were careless they were constantly under tremendous pressure dealing with the world's problems therefore, there is no reason to bring criminal charges for trying to do a good job." Or something like that...yes, one wonders if she had been a republican his comments would not be as severe. And may I add - Trump is better??? OY!
7
Ok. Think of this. She said that there was no classified emails that she received. She said that, under oath, to Congress. The FBI investigation has proven otherwise. Lying under oath is a crime. It's called perjury. Hello?!
7
The email scandal shows how Ms. Clinton attempts to evade her embarrassing lapses. Her ultimate defense is; well who do you want Donald Trump? As has been stated she is like Nixon. She dislikes the fact that she has obstacles to doing things in a way that are convenient for her. She dislikes having to explain her mistakes or willful evasions of the public trying to figure out what she is up to.
9
Well, keep waiting. It was different:
"I am still waiting for the investigation of Colin Powell for the same use of private e-mail..."
Powell didn't have his own server. He did have an AOL account that he used for some official business, but he says he always used his State Department email address for sensitive stuff. Clinton didn't even have a State Department email address.
At various times, Clinton has also claimed that Rice and Albright did the same thing, and many of her supporters are STILL claiming that about Rice (everyone seems to have dropped the Albright allegations). But Rice claims she never used email at all while she was Secretary of State. Unless she's lying (easy to check), somebody else must be lying.
"I am still waiting for the investigation of Colin Powell for the same use of private e-mail..."
Powell didn't have his own server. He did have an AOL account that he used for some official business, but he says he always used his State Department email address for sensitive stuff. Clinton didn't even have a State Department email address.
At various times, Clinton has also claimed that Rice and Albright did the same thing, and many of her supporters are STILL claiming that about Rice (everyone seems to have dropped the Albright allegations). But Rice claims she never used email at all while she was Secretary of State. Unless she's lying (easy to check), somebody else must be lying.
8
On the one hand, this doesn't matter. Few votes will be swayed, one way or the other, by this controversy.
On the other hand, it matters a great deal. The Clinton's live their lives, and, more importantly, carry out their jobs with the philosophy that there is one set of rules for them and their close allies, and another, quite different, set of rules for everyone else. Deliberately ignoring the laws on the protection of confidential information is but one example. (And the suggestion that Ms. Clinton did not act intentionally is ingenuous.) Mr. Clinton infamously pardoned many people he shouldn't have, including a drug dealer whose father was a major donor, and a financial scoundral who (and whose wife) was a donor. President Clinton did not break the law in issuing the pardons, but what he did was horribly wrong, and will have lasting ill effects.
So it is with Ms. Clinton today; her flagrant disregard of what is appropriate seriously undermines respect the population has for the rule of law. Which is not a good thing. It doesn't help that the Clintons' behavior has helped them amass a large fortune.
So, this probably won't change the outcome in November. But it is fair to say that both political parties have done a less that admirable job in selecting their likely nominees. And many Americans will have to select between the lesser of two bad choices to be our next President. This is a shame; on both sides of the aisle, there were far better alternatives.
On the other hand, it matters a great deal. The Clinton's live their lives, and, more importantly, carry out their jobs with the philosophy that there is one set of rules for them and their close allies, and another, quite different, set of rules for everyone else. Deliberately ignoring the laws on the protection of confidential information is but one example. (And the suggestion that Ms. Clinton did not act intentionally is ingenuous.) Mr. Clinton infamously pardoned many people he shouldn't have, including a drug dealer whose father was a major donor, and a financial scoundral who (and whose wife) was a donor. President Clinton did not break the law in issuing the pardons, but what he did was horribly wrong, and will have lasting ill effects.
So it is with Ms. Clinton today; her flagrant disregard of what is appropriate seriously undermines respect the population has for the rule of law. Which is not a good thing. It doesn't help that the Clintons' behavior has helped them amass a large fortune.
So, this probably won't change the outcome in November. But it is fair to say that both political parties have done a less that admirable job in selecting their likely nominees. And many Americans will have to select between the lesser of two bad choices to be our next President. This is a shame; on both sides of the aisle, there were far better alternatives.
10
Intent and negligence (carelessness) are almost opposites: if it wasn’t one, it has to be the other.
1
I listened to a legal scholar on NPR this morning (forgot the name) who said that no intent is needed for gross negligence. So the question, since then, that has been bothering me is this: How, then, is gross negligence any different from "extremely careless" (the words used by Comey to describe Clinton's use of a personal email server)?
3
"Gross negligence" precipitates an indictment. "Extreme Carelessness" does not. Since we can't have a presidential candidate (especially one where the current president is actively campaigning for them) in any real legal trouble, it can't go before any grand jury. Hence, it had to be carelessness and not negligence.
Otherwise, this would be going to a grand jury.
Don't you feel enlightened.
Otherwise, this would be going to a grand jury.
Don't you feel enlightened.
1
Makes me think of the story about the employee who flubbed a project and cost his company $5 million. Telling his boss he expected to be fired, the boss said "Fire you? We just spent $5 million educating you!"
Hillary will be much more knowledgeable and exacting about everything tech from now on.
Hillary will be much more knowledgeable and exacting about everything tech from now on.
5
Anyone who has ever perused the emails leaked by Chelsea Manning knows that "top secret" and "secret" emails from and too the state department are anything but serious National Security matters.
In most cases they are classified to prevent embarrassment to allies or to hide information already available in the public domain. To burden the Secretary of State with the need to work in secure spaces or to not be able to communicate quickly and efficiently is the height of nonsense.
The only people who are concerned are either partisan or paranoid. No one. least of all the United States have been harmed by Secretary Clinton's handling of her official email. Nor can identify or even articulate any harm.
In most cases they are classified to prevent embarrassment to allies or to hide information already available in the public domain. To burden the Secretary of State with the need to work in secure spaces or to not be able to communicate quickly and efficiently is the height of nonsense.
The only people who are concerned are either partisan or paranoid. No one. least of all the United States have been harmed by Secretary Clinton's handling of her official email. Nor can identify or even articulate any harm.
4
Life in the Presidency is life in a glass house. From her behavior, it is apparent that Mrs. Clinton wants the office, while maintaining the privacy level of a private citizen. That privacy level is simply not compatable with public life at the Presidency level. The result of this effort is to create a lack of transparency, distrust, and suspicion. Whether that distrust is justified or not by the facts. If you are trying to hide something, everyone (likely correctly) assumes there is a reason.
Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, is also tone deaf on matters involving appearances of conflict of interest, and a greed factor. Making things even worse.
Mrs. Clinton must decide whether she wants the privileges of office, or the trappings of a private sector celebrity. Then she can act accordingly. But she cannot have both.
Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, is also tone deaf on matters involving appearances of conflict of interest, and a greed factor. Making things even worse.
Mrs. Clinton must decide whether she wants the privileges of office, or the trappings of a private sector celebrity. Then she can act accordingly. But she cannot have both.
13
HRC should publicly and forthrightly own her mistakes regarding
sensitive State Department email, right now, with a promise to
use more care in complying with the letter of regulations related to
government emails, especially ones with sensitive or classified information. No 15-minute speech is required, just a short, pithy acknowledgement that she was in error and handled it poorly.
Then she should simply move on with her campaign and leave the issue behind. If she is asked about it at press conferences or debates in the future, she should similarly respond.
sensitive State Department email, right now, with a promise to
use more care in complying with the letter of regulations related to
government emails, especially ones with sensitive or classified information. No 15-minute speech is required, just a short, pithy acknowledgement that she was in error and handled it poorly.
Then she should simply move on with her campaign and leave the issue behind. If she is asked about it at press conferences or debates in the future, she should similarly respond.
4
There is the small issue of selling access to the US Government to foreign nationals and assorted bad-actor regimes in return for "contributions" to the Clinton foundation. I would bet that Hillary erased some of those 30,000 emails to cover up any proof of that activity.
Will the US public ever know for sure? Maybe not, but you can be assured that the Clintons will never change their money grubbing habits.
Will the US public ever know for sure? Maybe not, but you can be assured that the Clintons will never change their money grubbing habits.
7
So we're supposed to be fine with her being "extremely careless" while holding the highest office in the land? And we're supposed to be ok with the fact that the FBI said if it were anyone else they would almost certainly be in trouble? So she walks away - no consequences?
Really, I know that Trump is worse, but how are we supposed to get excited to vote for someone like this? How are we supposed to get behind her?
There are other choices out there and it's looking more and more like I'm going to vote for a third party candidate.
Really, I know that Trump is worse, but how are we supposed to get excited to vote for someone like this? How are we supposed to get behind her?
There are other choices out there and it's looking more and more like I'm going to vote for a third party candidate.
9
Hillary Clinton has been declared "extremely careless" while Donald Trump has been accused as "carelessly extreme." It finally looks like there is at least one way to make a clear choice between the two. Trump (at least so far) has merely been careless in his words while Clinton has been careless in her actions. Or, will many stick more to the (d)evil they know than the one they don't?
6
The law on handling classified information does not require intent. And our criminal justice reform efforts are hung up in part because Democrats want to eliminate the mens rea requirement from even more sorts of offenses.
I think three crucial points are missing from the debate: 1) The reason there are only a handful of classified emails uncovered, is because Hillary Clinton and her staff used the secure State Department communications lines for classified material. Why does this never get mentioned? 2) from earlier descriptions of the email server, I understood it to be the same server used by the former President of the US - Bill Clinton - and maintained by the Secret Service. And 3) inspite of Comey's comments, I do not believe there has ever been any evidence to show that this server or these emails were ever hacked or compromised.
9
Says Grubbs: "The reason there are only a handful of classified emails uncovered, is because Hillary Clinton and her staff used the secure State Department communications lines for classified material." This is just wrong. She didn't even have a "state.gov" email address!
5
But her staff did, duh. Its even in one of the cases cited for sending a 'classified' item via her server, the staffer could not get the darn State Dept. system to work. Read the news accounts - its in there.
2
Your post says clearly that "Clinton *and her staff* used secure State department communications lines for classified material." So "duh" right back at you.
1
Eight e-mails that were top secret and several dozen that were secret and confidential were transmitted through this personal account. I wonder how many recipients there where on these dozens of e-mails and why none of them were alarmed by the risks? More disturbing than an instance of an individuals lack of good judgement this suggests a culture of carelessness at the State Department.
1
Excellent point. It has to be suspected that these sensitive email chains the report addresses did not start with Secretary Clinton and were sent over the secure server to outside addresses. Unless this was done exclusively for Ms. Clinton, and it doesn't appear that is the case since the report stated these email chains were sourced from a number of private (presumed mobile) servers. That sounds to me like IT policies were either inadequate or unenforceable, and I wouldn't think it would be the Secretary's job to be responsible for writing and enforcing IT policy.
3
As several of the commenters below (or above) have said, Comey was out of line with his comments. They weren't part of his job as a law enforcement officer investigating a crime. And the New York Times was out of line in not pointing this out.
Mr. Comey didn't do much about emails in the Replican Administration (where he also served as attorney general). He was appointed by President Bush and apprently didn't see any "extreme recklessnes and private emails (Powell and Rice) were not uncommon. when millions of emails were shredded. Since he stepped outside his job to make these comments, we can only regard them as opinion and GOP faithful opinion at that.
Mr. Comey didn't do much about emails in the Replican Administration (where he also served as attorney general). He was appointed by President Bush and apprently didn't see any "extreme recklessnes and private emails (Powell and Rice) were not uncommon. when millions of emails were shredded. Since he stepped outside his job to make these comments, we can only regard them as opinion and GOP faithful opinion at that.
8
Coney wasn't out of line in reporting his findings directly to the public. In fact, AG Lynch effectively instructed him to do exactly that. His responsibility was to express his findings on the degree of Hillary's culpability in this incident. That includes describing Hillary as "extremely careless" but not criminal, if that's what she was. Normally he would have conveyed all of that in private. In this instance, with Lynch effectively recusing herself on passing judgment on Hillary, Coney got the job of publicly passing judgment.
3
I'm so tired of the Republican political calculus being designed to distract us from the real problems we face as a nation. How about a real conversation on the failure of global capitalism? How about a real debate over global climate change and the increasingly rapid collapse of ecosystems around the world? How about confronting the nation's failure to invest in infrastructure projects that are needed to keep the U.S. competitive with China, India and Europe? Instead we fight over a woman's right to receive contraception from her employer or the reasonable expectation that a woman can receive the medical care she requires if something goes wrong with her pregnancy. Whatever Hillary did with her emails as Secretary of State pales beside the self-serving, feckless, seditious, subversive behavior of the Republican leadership in Congress.
11
We also fight about raising an artificial wage floor and demanding that there is no due process for those accused of rape in college and demanding that anyone can claim to be any sex they want, regardless of biology, and just their believing is enough to let boys shower with girls from as young as they want.
See not everyone believes that the thing that we as a nation need to do is destroy our economy on a theory that will take at least 100 years to have any measurable accuracy or results. Not everyone things that spending billions on high speed rail and commuter rail is a sound investment as there are almost no rail lines like that in the world that are profitable. Your whole list is just a list of the things that are important to you and you say that they should be important to everyone. Take a step back and realize that not everyone will prioritize like you, and there's nothing wrong with that.
See not everyone believes that the thing that we as a nation need to do is destroy our economy on a theory that will take at least 100 years to have any measurable accuracy or results. Not everyone things that spending billions on high speed rail and commuter rail is a sound investment as there are almost no rail lines like that in the world that are profitable. Your whole list is just a list of the things that are important to you and you say that they should be important to everyone. Take a step back and realize that not everyone will prioritize like you, and there's nothing wrong with that.
1
I'm not a Hillary hater, but really, a Secretary of State mishandling classified documents? While in college I worked a few summers at a military base in NJ and they made it very clear to me what documents I could handle and what I could not. If I had even looked at classified documents I would have been immediately fired.
This is serious stuff and just glossing over it does not do our government justice. Unfortunately the alternate is Donald trump.
How did the greatest democracy of our time end up with these two candidates?
Somebody please hit the restart button.
This is serious stuff and just glossing over it does not do our government justice. Unfortunately the alternate is Donald trump.
How did the greatest democracy of our time end up with these two candidates?
Somebody please hit the restart button.
13
Assuming being Secretary of State is a 24/7, 365 job, isn't it reasonable to assume that sort of work requires receiving and sending hundreds of daily emails? And, given this amount of busy email traffic, isn't it plausible that the lines between what is personal, political, and professional are easily blurred? After all, besides being a Secretary of State she is also a former U.S. Senator, First Lady, presidential hopeful. and grandmother.
I get it, she should have rigorously followed state department protocol and she didn't. The FBI launched an investigation for over a year, sifted through 30,000 emails and found no criminal intent. Careless and sloppy? Perhaps. Worthy of an indictment? I'll take the word of a career FBI man who served as a former Republican deputy AG under W. Bush.
Is there something here I'm missing?
I get it, she should have rigorously followed state department protocol and she didn't. The FBI launched an investigation for over a year, sifted through 30,000 emails and found no criminal intent. Careless and sloppy? Perhaps. Worthy of an indictment? I'll take the word of a career FBI man who served as a former Republican deputy AG under W. Bush.
Is there something here I'm missing?
8
This is extraordinary.
The investigation was flawed. The alleged wrongdoer maintained control of the evidence until late in the investigation. So, your conclusion that the legal decision not to indict was "undoubtedly correct" is inaccurate. At best we could say it might be correct. We don't know and will never know what the evidence would have shown had the investigation been conducted as if the Secretary were not the Secretary.
Sandra is correct that Comey's comments were gratuitous. In any normal criminal investigation, the DOJ indicts or it does not. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a rebuke given with a decision not to indict. So, why the speech? My hunch is Mr. Comey was uncomfortable or unhappy with the decision not to indict - just a hunch. If this were any other defendant, the DOJ would have indicted and let the justice system and trier of fact decide whether she was guilty.
The investigation was flawed. The alleged wrongdoer maintained control of the evidence until late in the investigation. So, your conclusion that the legal decision not to indict was "undoubtedly correct" is inaccurate. At best we could say it might be correct. We don't know and will never know what the evidence would have shown had the investigation been conducted as if the Secretary were not the Secretary.
Sandra is correct that Comey's comments were gratuitous. In any normal criminal investigation, the DOJ indicts or it does not. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a rebuke given with a decision not to indict. So, why the speech? My hunch is Mr. Comey was uncomfortable or unhappy with the decision not to indict - just a hunch. If this were any other defendant, the DOJ would have indicted and let the justice system and trier of fact decide whether she was guilty.
3
There are two things about this so called email "scandal" that are very troubling. First off the FBI investigation was an administrative investigation of the State Department's email systems, prompted by a GOP request that appears to have been a deliberate effort to perpetuate the email issue that emerged from the Benghazi investigation (a GOP witch hunt, price tag $7 million). Second, the FBI director James Comey some 20 years ago was the Deputy Special Counsel who carried out the senate's investigation of the so called Whitewater "scandal" (yet another GOP witch hunt into the Clintons, price tag $2 million), clearly a ‘conflict of interest’ situation from which Comey should have recused himself.
For years the GOP and their legions of shrill extreme right wing pundits have been waging a veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. These two investigations are the skulduggery hallmarks of one of the most ugly persistent prolonged smear campaigns in US political history.
For years the GOP and their legions of shrill extreme right wing pundits have been waging a veritable war of attrition on the Clintons ... their legacy and their character. These two investigations are the skulduggery hallmarks of one of the most ugly persistent prolonged smear campaigns in US political history.
6
John, if you are correct that Comey was involved in the Whitewater investigation, then that adds a whole new spin to the investigation of the current "scandal." The Clintons have to be the most heavily investigated couple in the history of American politics. Yet there have never been any indictments. To me, this is further evidence of political witch hunts on the part of Republicans, rather than evidence of actual wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons.
Let's move on, already!
Let's move on, already!
6
The government and the Democratic Party establishment won't listen to the people unless we take to the streets, a la Occupy Wall Street. Same for the Republicans. We need two new candidates. I suspect that neither of the current ones would meet the guidelines for getting a security clearance.
7
Sorry, but I think this is a big deal. HRC was extremely careless, misleading (she lied), and unprofessional when she served as the Secretary of State. That is not acceptable.
It doesn't make Donald Trump any bit more acceptable a candidate. He is utterly unqualified. But can we stop viewing this scandal solely through the lenses of worry about a potential Trump presidency, and just have the honesty to say (or at least understand why other people of good faith say) that maybe HRC also is not an acceptable choice for the presidency. In a vacuum, or simply on it's own merits, an "extremely careless" Secretary of State should not be promoted to the White House.
It doesn't make Donald Trump any bit more acceptable a candidate. He is utterly unqualified. But can we stop viewing this scandal solely through the lenses of worry about a potential Trump presidency, and just have the honesty to say (or at least understand why other people of good faith say) that maybe HRC also is not an acceptable choice for the presidency. In a vacuum, or simply on it's own merits, an "extremely careless" Secretary of State should not be promoted to the White House.
9
In the "makes you wonder" category, I'm inclined to compare HRC to the Golden State Warriors. How could this be possible, you might ask. Well both are extremely skilled in their respective fields of endeavor, but both have a penchant for committing unforced errors/turnovers. HRC should have found out how to protect her private messages using a government system, and the Warriors did not need to throw cross-court passes for no recognizable gain. HRC can only hope that in the last few weeks of the campaign she does not throw another misguided pass.
Since when is it in the purview of the FBI to comment, either positively or negatively, on cases they have decided are not prosecutable? Generally a brief announcement is made that the case does not rise to the level of indictable offenses, with no elaborations otherwise. So, if there's a fix involved, as many have commented here, is Comey's press conference in which he throws bones to Republicans in the form of ready made talking points a part of this fix? I think his comments about the case were an egregious overstepping of his authority and intended to do political damage.
3
Bill Safire was right.
4
Obama said to Chris Wallace of Fox News (about a year ago) that what Hillary did was stupid but she did not intend to harm the United States.
Comey said yesterday that Hillary was extremely careless (read stupid) but did not INTEND to harm US interests.
Did Obama write the speech for Comey?
Comey said yesterday that Hillary was extremely careless (read stupid) but did not INTEND to harm US interests.
Did Obama write the speech for Comey?
5
Probably right, but you're overlooking something:
"The number of people who will change their minds because of this report is negligible."
I can't imagine any Hillary supporter is going to say "Well, Trump looks better to me now." But some might say: "A third party candidate might be worth considering."
If that occurs, the question becomes: "If many voters choose a third-party candidate, which major-party candidate will benefit most from that?"
The predictable answer to that question is "Clinton," on the assumption that most third-party votes would go to the Libertarian candidate rather than the Green candidate, and that Libertarian votes hurt the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate.
Surprisingly, though, polls with and without third-party candidates don't show much difference. If anything, Clinton seems to fare slightly worse when the Libertarian and Green candidates are added to the mix. Quite possibly, though, many poll-takers who say they'd vote Libertarian are disgruntled Sanders supporters, almost all of which will dutifully return to the mother ship in November and vote for Hillary.
If so, third-party voting will help Hillary. Bill Clinton benefited from it considerably. He won two terms without getting a majority of the votes either time. His Republican opponent and H. Ross Perot split the vote both times, and Bill Clinton won even though most people voted for someone else.
Hillary could well repeat history here.
"The number of people who will change their minds because of this report is negligible."
I can't imagine any Hillary supporter is going to say "Well, Trump looks better to me now." But some might say: "A third party candidate might be worth considering."
If that occurs, the question becomes: "If many voters choose a third-party candidate, which major-party candidate will benefit most from that?"
The predictable answer to that question is "Clinton," on the assumption that most third-party votes would go to the Libertarian candidate rather than the Green candidate, and that Libertarian votes hurt the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate.
Surprisingly, though, polls with and without third-party candidates don't show much difference. If anything, Clinton seems to fare slightly worse when the Libertarian and Green candidates are added to the mix. Quite possibly, though, many poll-takers who say they'd vote Libertarian are disgruntled Sanders supporters, almost all of which will dutifully return to the mother ship in November and vote for Hillary.
If so, third-party voting will help Hillary. Bill Clinton benefited from it considerably. He won two terms without getting a majority of the votes either time. His Republican opponent and H. Ross Perot split the vote both times, and Bill Clinton won even though most people voted for someone else.
Hillary could well repeat history here.
None of these e-mails (that were top secret at the time they were sent or received, and later upclassified) should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
--------------------------------------------
Hillary is a trained lawyer and she should know better than to do what she did.
Comey stated further: "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."
To think that she is in legal jeopardy despite all these 'crimes' is to be outraged.
She did the crime. Let her do the time.
Our LAWS matter.
--------------------------------------------
Hillary is a trained lawyer and she should know better than to do what she did.
Comey stated further: "She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."
To think that she is in legal jeopardy despite all these 'crimes' is to be outraged.
She did the crime. Let her do the time.
Our LAWS matter.
8
Absolutely correct. Moreover, the vile acts were compounded and continued as recently as last week when Bill Clinton, a trained lawyer had an ex parte thirty minute conversation with the ultimate prosecutor - Attorney General Lynch (also a trained lawyer). All lawyers know that this type of behavior is totally unethical (if not illegal) and can lead to disbarment
3
many people seem upset that FBI director Comey overstepped his bounds by giving his reasoning for stating that Mrs. Clinton should not be prosecuted. On the contrary in this case I think the American people deserve to know and needed to know the reasoning behind his decision. Being careless with top-secret information is both illegal and can be dangerous. In addition the deletion of emails to the point where they could not be recovered rises to the level of a cover-up.
What no one has addressed is the "why". Why might Mrs. Clinton have decided to use her own server for State Department business. If it were her intention to "own" these email documents that it would rise to the level of an egregious act. I think there is a mechanism to have fined her for the security lapses and I think that would have been most appropriate. She can certainly afford it
What no one has addressed is the "why". Why might Mrs. Clinton have decided to use her own server for State Department business. If it were her intention to "own" these email documents that it would rise to the level of an egregious act. I think there is a mechanism to have fined her for the security lapses and I think that would have been most appropriate. She can certainly afford it
3
The only damage Mrs. Clinton use of a private email server is the possibility that the Party of Righteous Indignation will waste more money on a hearing to pound this dead horse to smithereens.
Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server may not have been good judgment, but her emails did not cause WW III. Her server was more secure than the government's was and maybe she was shrewd to use it. We can debate that, and I'm not sure it was wise, but it happened. So, everyone, have a good cluck over it and let's move on.
Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server may not have been good judgment, but her emails did not cause WW III. Her server was more secure than the government's was and maybe she was shrewd to use it. We can debate that, and I'm not sure it was wise, but it happened. So, everyone, have a good cluck over it and let's move on.
3
What Donald Trump would do if he became the President is more speculative compared to what Hillary would do as the President. Hillary's reckless and "extremely careless" behavior as the Secretary of State is fact. Therefore, her future behavior is judged based on this fact. Donald Trump has never held governmental positions, so there is no factual information as to how he would act as would-be President. Statistically speaking, Hillary's wrongdoing as POTUS is more likely compared to Trump's.
2
So the take away is that if members of the general public did what she did we would be held accountable Yet she is not. I am still trying to square that circle.
6
And why was George Bush never indicted for war crimes? The double standard is alive and well in the U.S.
8
"This legal decision is undoubtedly correct."
The propaganda never stops.
Hillary intentionally set up a personal, non-secure server. She used this server exclusively for her email communications. She knew that she would be receiving classified information in her email communications. She knew that she did receive classified information in her email communication. Thus, she knew that by her intentional conduct, she would remove classified information from the proper place of custody. At the very minimum, this was grossly negligent. 18 U.S.C. 793(f).
Game over. That is, for everyone else. For people who don't have a president pulling strings for her. For people who don't have an establishment structure bankrolling her.
People at the NY Times: You're on the wrong side of this. This is a truly disgusting chapter in American history. You do not have to dirty yourselves by serving as propagandists. Do the job you're supposed to do. Report the news. Some things are more important than a presidential candidate's gender.
Let the Grand Jury Examine Hillary's email Case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRoH7Dtzd2U
The propaganda never stops.
Hillary intentionally set up a personal, non-secure server. She used this server exclusively for her email communications. She knew that she would be receiving classified information in her email communications. She knew that she did receive classified information in her email communication. Thus, she knew that by her intentional conduct, she would remove classified information from the proper place of custody. At the very minimum, this was grossly negligent. 18 U.S.C. 793(f).
Game over. That is, for everyone else. For people who don't have a president pulling strings for her. For people who don't have an establishment structure bankrolling her.
People at the NY Times: You're on the wrong side of this. This is a truly disgusting chapter in American history. You do not have to dirty yourselves by serving as propagandists. Do the job you're supposed to do. Report the news. Some things are more important than a presidential candidate's gender.
Let the Grand Jury Examine Hillary's email Case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRoH7Dtzd2U
6
I am a lifelong Democrat, but let's get real here:
Hilary Clinton lied -- yet I am still probably going to vote for her. I just cannot bring myself to vote for that eejit Trump. How could I explain to my grandchildren that President Trump (oh, the horror of just writing that) and a Republican Congress destroyed Social Security, Medicare, school lunches for needy children etc... and that I had voted for the people who did it.
Can't do it.
But Hilary, time for a mea culpa. And stop lying. It's unbecoming and it puts your supporters in a really awkward position.
Hilary Clinton lied -- yet I am still probably going to vote for her. I just cannot bring myself to vote for that eejit Trump. How could I explain to my grandchildren that President Trump (oh, the horror of just writing that) and a Republican Congress destroyed Social Security, Medicare, school lunches for needy children etc... and that I had voted for the people who did it.
Can't do it.
But Hilary, time for a mea culpa. And stop lying. It's unbecoming and it puts your supporters in a really awkward position.
7
Virginia needs a new governor who doesn' t know the Clintons.
1
There is always the option of not voting for either of those two. There are other candidates, or you could simply choose not to vote in that election while still voting for local and state offices. Just saying; there are more than 2 binary choices, and depending on where you live, it may not matter regardless.
5
I am not a Clinton hater and will not vote for Trump. But in my mind, Bill's meeting with the attorney general, this decision by the FBI, and the rumor, if true, that Loretta Lynch may stay on in a Clinton Administration, gives traction to all the previous rumors I have heard. I find the two of them utterly unpalatable.
And if you heard the story of the Secret Service agent telling tales of her behavior in the White House, let me tell you that, while working with the US Attorney's Office in the 1990s, I was told the same things by secret service agents I worked with.
What a pathetic choice for a great nation. We should be given a third choice on the ballot, "NEITHER"
And if you heard the story of the Secret Service agent telling tales of her behavior in the White House, let me tell you that, while working with the US Attorney's Office in the 1990s, I was told the same things by secret service agents I worked with.
What a pathetic choice for a great nation. We should be given a third choice on the ballot, "NEITHER"
13
I do not expect my leaders to be saints. But do expect them to be competent , care about people and basically honest. Since you cannot see into a person's heart you have to examined their history to see if they meet that criteria. Looking at Trump's history and Hillary's history it is very plain that Hillary meets my standard while Trump falls far short.
9
Let the record show your free admission to having low standards.
16
So, in this case she's not a crook.
She's just a floozy, who had no idea what she was doing with all this newfangled, oh-so-complicated, email stuff.
And this is a reason to make her president?
She's just a floozy, who had no idea what she was doing with all this newfangled, oh-so-complicated, email stuff.
And this is a reason to make her president?
22
A floozy? The Oxford English Dictionary defines this as "A girl or a woman who has many casual sexual partners". This is clearly a sexist and outrageous remark. Your only possible defense is that you have no idea what the word means.
2
Considering that the decision to prosecute is up to DOJ, if Trump becomes the president, his DOJ can proceed to prosecute Hillary on the basis of FBI's findings announced yesterday. She must be spending sleepless nights over this scenario, folks. And she should.
7
Bush/Cheney lied about WMD and brought us into a disastrous war that caused up to one million deaths, disabilities and trillions of dollars - no problem, according to Republicans.
Hillary uses wrong email system - major crime according to Republicans.
Perspective? Hypocrisy?
Hillary uses wrong email system - major crime according to Republicans.
Perspective? Hypocrisy?
15
How about slant... on your part.
Bush & Cheney blew it... big time. They got us into a costly war, and it was a really bad idea. Yes. But they made their decision based on all of the available intelligence that was collected by US operatives and those of our strongest allies - most especially the Brits. That they made a call and got it wrong (the WMDs that were uncovered a couple of years ago, now, proved to be past their "due date") is unfortunate but does not constitute "lying."
On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton was either lying or, if we are to believe her point of view, is so computer illiterate that every 21st Century voter should be questioning her competence to have any high-powered job. If she truly doesn't get how and why her decision to use several private email servers was a bad idea for safeguarding sensitive information, I doubt she could get a job filling online mail-orders for a living.
When the general public asks her whether she showed incredible incompetence or tremendous apathy towards national security policy... if she is honest, her reply would have to be, "I don't know and I don't care."
From your perspective, that is a good thing, I guess.
Bush & Cheney blew it... big time. They got us into a costly war, and it was a really bad idea. Yes. But they made their decision based on all of the available intelligence that was collected by US operatives and those of our strongest allies - most especially the Brits. That they made a call and got it wrong (the WMDs that were uncovered a couple of years ago, now, proved to be past their "due date") is unfortunate but does not constitute "lying."
On the other hand, Mrs. Clinton was either lying or, if we are to believe her point of view, is so computer illiterate that every 21st Century voter should be questioning her competence to have any high-powered job. If she truly doesn't get how and why her decision to use several private email servers was a bad idea for safeguarding sensitive information, I doubt she could get a job filling online mail-orders for a living.
When the general public asks her whether she showed incredible incompetence or tremendous apathy towards national security policy... if she is honest, her reply would have to be, "I don't know and I don't care."
From your perspective, that is a good thing, I guess.
6
A war that Hillary as a U.S. Senator VOTED FOR!!!
4
Hillary is a poor choice to be President of the United States. She and her supporters think she is entitled. She is so driven to be President she has been neglectful in any role she has assumed because they have been taken just to pad her resume. Being Senator was just a stepping stone to the Presidency and becoming Secretary of State was a consolation prize doled out by Obama. Neither of those jobs truly mattered, they were just detours on the road.
She does have qualifications. She is smart, experienced, and capable. But her best attribute is her opponent. Donald Trump is grossly unsuited to be President. He is so bad and would be such a poor choice he makes Hillary desirable by comparison.
The 2016 election has become a nightmare of a bad choice and a really bad choice. (If only the nominees were John Kasich and Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren! Candidates that are likeable.) Let us hope the next four years go by quickly and some sanity returns in 2020.
She does have qualifications. She is smart, experienced, and capable. But her best attribute is her opponent. Donald Trump is grossly unsuited to be President. He is so bad and would be such a poor choice he makes Hillary desirable by comparison.
The 2016 election has become a nightmare of a bad choice and a really bad choice. (If only the nominees were John Kasich and Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren! Candidates that are likeable.) Let us hope the next four years go by quickly and some sanity returns in 2020.
13
We're not looking for likability. We're looking for brains and expertise. Hilary's got them. Therefore, she'll make a good president.
Bush was also 'likable'. I rest my case.
1
The hubbub over Ms Clinton's e-mail server is hysteria. Ms Clinton set up her own e-mail server because she wanted to have sole access to her personal e-mails, which she mixed with professional e-mail. She assumed it was OK--she wanted it to be OK and the feeble objections that initially were raised were quashed quickly. With her IT provider she set up the server. All indications are that it was done professionally and securely. Given that servers at the Pentagon, State and WH, and elsewhere were hacked, Mrs' Clinton's server may have been the most secure in DC! Mrs Clinton served as head of state from 2009 to 2013 and now (2015 actually) a stink is being raised about her private e-mail server! The whole matter is driven purely by political gamesmanship with absence of any damage, harm or malfeasance known or even suspected. If you are upset then your emotions have got the better of your rational judgement.
11
Please keep in mind that Hillary and the administration refused to admit that there was a private server; State just kept saying they don't have any emails on Hillary and never questioned why. That's the reason that this didn't come up until 2015; it wasn't until Judicial Watch got an FOIA request granted that the server was discovered. Since then, congress and the FBI have been reviewing what Hillary gave them along with what she didn't.
3
Look at how the FBI treated Martin Luther King's civil rights for speaking up for human rights in our country , and look at how Hillary Clinton was treated by the same government agency. Look at how the Obama administration has zealously gone after whistleblowers, and look at how Obama is treating Hillary Clinton.
The fix is in folks America may be a nation of laws but the law only applies to the nettlesome people, not the 1% that includes the private and government sector wealthy and well connected.
Trump or Hillary in November, really, the people deserve the leaders they get? I'm writing in Sanders for president, neither Trump nor Hillary represent the average American.
The fix is in folks America may be a nation of laws but the law only applies to the nettlesome people, not the 1% that includes the private and government sector wealthy and well connected.
Trump or Hillary in November, really, the people deserve the leaders they get? I'm writing in Sanders for president, neither Trump nor Hillary represent the average American.
12
There seems to be a high degree of shock, outrage and even despondency in reaction to this decision.
Horrified, anguished cries of a "rigged, fixed system".
Out of all the horrible, life crushing legal outcomes in our proud past, this is the one that was the "deal breaker" for all of you, the one that forces you to cry "uncle" and declare our democratic experiment "broken"?
Really?
This was never anything more than a purely partisan witch hunt over arcane legal minutiae, an offshoot of another farcical investigation(s) (Benghazi).
It's a messy business, this democracy stuff.
But no need to get out the prayer beads over a sideshow like this.
That's our real problem, we can't even focus on the important stuff anymore.
Horrified, anguished cries of a "rigged, fixed system".
Out of all the horrible, life crushing legal outcomes in our proud past, this is the one that was the "deal breaker" for all of you, the one that forces you to cry "uncle" and declare our democratic experiment "broken"?
Really?
This was never anything more than a purely partisan witch hunt over arcane legal minutiae, an offshoot of another farcical investigation(s) (Benghazi).
It's a messy business, this democracy stuff.
But no need to get out the prayer beads over a sideshow like this.
That's our real problem, we can't even focus on the important stuff anymore.
10
@JayK:
Are you saying FBI is partisan? That Comey accused her of extreme carelessness, and followed up with proof, just to attack her politically?
Seems the problems is yours: you have trouble focusing on the important stuff. What Comey just told the nation is important, and the rest of us have no problem focusing on that.
Are you saying FBI is partisan? That Comey accused her of extreme carelessness, and followed up with proof, just to attack her politically?
Seems the problems is yours: you have trouble focusing on the important stuff. What Comey just told the nation is important, and the rest of us have no problem focusing on that.
10
Comey tried his best but failed to "split the baby" here.
I actually think he's got integrity, but he was in over his head with this, as most people would have been.
I actually don't blame him, he had an impossible hand to play.
I actually think he's got integrity, but he was in over his head with this, as most people would have been.
I actually don't blame him, he had an impossible hand to play.
1
I agree with JayK. Comey has done us a favor by halting what ever cynical adult has always known would never turn into anything like a trial or even less, a conviction.
Earlier today, a commentator suggested that "if Mrs. Clinton were to be caught on video, handing over several file folders marked 'TOP SECRET' to the Chinese Embassy, Attorney General Lynch would not find any wrong-doing.
For every GOP lune' that thinks there are plots against America under every liberal rock, there is a DNC apologist who doesn't see any problem with how Mrs. Clinton conducted business, and is convinced that the "vast, right wing conspiracy" is the only party to blame.
Earlier today, a commentator suggested that "if Mrs. Clinton were to be caught on video, handing over several file folders marked 'TOP SECRET' to the Chinese Embassy, Attorney General Lynch would not find any wrong-doing.
For every GOP lune' that thinks there are plots against America under every liberal rock, there is a DNC apologist who doesn't see any problem with how Mrs. Clinton conducted business, and is convinced that the "vast, right wing conspiracy" is the only party to blame.
4
As a "smart" woman, she has made too many damaging mistakes. Fortunately, she is running against a bigger fool.
She had my vote but very reluctantly, maybe Hllary would suspend her run and Biden could become the nominee.
She had my vote but very reluctantly, maybe Hllary would suspend her run and Biden could become the nominee.
7
oh for god sake who cares about Hillary's email. I know I don't.
12
Let us now give solemn thanks to the two great insurers of our nation: the Democratic and Republican parties. Where would we be without them? Together they have perfectly framed every important political question. Once again they have put forth to the American people the two very best candidates for our most important office. All we need do is choose which of these masterful parties, through their wonderful candidates, will lead us forward.
How could George Washington and John Adams have been so mistaken when they warned us of political parties and of a two-party system? How could the dire predictions of these two founding fathers have been so far wrong?
How could George Washington and John Adams have been so mistaken when they warned us of political parties and of a two-party system? How could the dire predictions of these two founding fathers have been so far wrong?
6
Wall Street would never allow Hillary to be indicted.
13
She didn't break any laws and she IS one of the most qualified individuals for the US presidency in history, perhaps even the most qualified ever.
The use of private email accounts within the Federal government is nothing new, even among previous Secretary's of State. It's not definitively clear whether Mrs. Clinton was the first to use a private server as a high ranking member of the Federal government but after her highly public excoriation from the FBI Director, ALL current and future members of the Federal government are now at least fully aware of the communication perils of going rogue. Moving forward, the State Department, in particular, will hopefully manage the transmission of its department communications more effectively and will enforce the exact same constraints on all members of the department, regardless of their rank. If the director of the State Department or any of its high ranking employees were aware of Mrs. Clinton's practice, which she apparently had been engaging in since the start of her service, and they did nothing to stop it, then there are far more serious systemic failures within the entire State Department to be addressed.
The use of private email accounts within the Federal government is nothing new, even among previous Secretary's of State. It's not definitively clear whether Mrs. Clinton was the first to use a private server as a high ranking member of the Federal government but after her highly public excoriation from the FBI Director, ALL current and future members of the Federal government are now at least fully aware of the communication perils of going rogue. Moving forward, the State Department, in particular, will hopefully manage the transmission of its department communications more effectively and will enforce the exact same constraints on all members of the department, regardless of their rank. If the director of the State Department or any of its high ranking employees were aware of Mrs. Clinton's practice, which she apparently had been engaging in since the start of her service, and they did nothing to stop it, then there are far more serious systemic failures within the entire State Department to be addressed.
11
"Perhaps THE most qualified... ever" Jeff. Learn some history.
First, the only actual qualifications, as I recall, is that the candidate is a natural-born American citizen and is at least 35 years old. There are well over 100 million Americans who are as qualified as Mrs. Clinton to be president.
Secondly, in response to your statement of hyperbole: John Adams, a successful trial litigator, co-wrote the Declaration of Independence, served as a foreign minister to France, the Netherlands, and even Great Britain, and was VP before being elected POTUS. Jefferson co-wrote the Declaration, the VA Statute for Religious Freedom, was governor of VA, minister to France, Secretary of State, and VP before becoming POTUS. John Tyler served in both houses of Congress, governor of VA, and VP, before POTUS. LBJ served in both houses of Congress before VP & then POTUS. More recently, George HW Bush was the Ambassador to China, to the UN, CIA Chief, and then VP until elected.
Bottom line. If (perhaps when) she gets elected, she will only be of an average qualification, as compared to her 44 predecessors. She is more "qualified" (in your definition) than our current president, who was only a one-time, incomplete term, US Senator before POTUS... which is probably why Barack Obama said she was the "most qualified man or woman, in history", yesterday. Compared to him, she is overqualified.
First, the only actual qualifications, as I recall, is that the candidate is a natural-born American citizen and is at least 35 years old. There are well over 100 million Americans who are as qualified as Mrs. Clinton to be president.
Secondly, in response to your statement of hyperbole: John Adams, a successful trial litigator, co-wrote the Declaration of Independence, served as a foreign minister to France, the Netherlands, and even Great Britain, and was VP before being elected POTUS. Jefferson co-wrote the Declaration, the VA Statute for Religious Freedom, was governor of VA, minister to France, Secretary of State, and VP before becoming POTUS. John Tyler served in both houses of Congress, governor of VA, and VP, before POTUS. LBJ served in both houses of Congress before VP & then POTUS. More recently, George HW Bush was the Ambassador to China, to the UN, CIA Chief, and then VP until elected.
Bottom line. If (perhaps when) she gets elected, she will only be of an average qualification, as compared to her 44 predecessors. She is more "qualified" (in your definition) than our current president, who was only a one-time, incomplete term, US Senator before POTUS... which is probably why Barack Obama said she was the "most qualified man or woman, in history", yesterday. Compared to him, she is overqualified.
4
Will the Republicans ever give up on their witch hunt of Hillary Clinton. OK she had bad judgement in using her private e-mail server. She didn't break the law and was severely scolded publicly by Comey. Enough already. I'm sick and tired of hearing about these e-mails. I'm for Hillary!
4
Quite to the contrary. There is political clarity, but no legal clarity. The FBI director laid out, word for word, the legal standards for prosecution, action by action. Her guilt is undisputable by all who have read and worked under Title 18. The political clarity, however, is shining. Mr. Clapper does not want to be assassinated, and therefore recommends that she not be prosecuted. If you do not believe me and the tens of thousands of people who worked with classified material, then read Title 18 yourself. Nowhere in there does it require "mens rea", nor suggest that deliberately setting up your own IT system does not, in itself, demonstrate intent.
9
The Clintons view public service as their business. Their industry. And they have made tens of millions of dollars selling influence.
The Clintons are the 1%ers, and the Clinton voters are "With Her."
Bribes, using the IRS to target enemies, the "video," Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Solyndra . . .
We are a banana republic.
The Clintons are the 1%ers, and the Clinton voters are "With Her."
Bribes, using the IRS to target enemies, the "video," Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Solyndra . . .
We are a banana republic.
14
22 million emails were deleted by the Bush administration, and almost two dozen White House staff members during the Bush administration used the RNC's private server. Where was the FBI investigation then? How many of those emails had different levels of security classifications?
Darrell Issa released information classified about Libyan to the public from his Benghazi investigation, and Marcia Blackburn has released the names of researchers in her Planned Parenthood committee: both jeopardized the lives of individuals through this abuse of information. Where was the FBI investigation then? Yesterday I saw the horrified responses from both Darrell Issa and Paul Ryan about Clinton's emails. Pure hypocrisy unless they set their own House in order, perhaps with the help of the FBI.
Sorry, but this whole thing is another manifestation of the endless Clinton witch hunts which sometimes use spectral evidence and other times sift through evidence to reach conclusions that are political propaganda.
As Will Rogers said, "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." I would vote for Hilary Clinton any day over her inexperienced, unqualified, bigoted competition.
Darrell Issa released information classified about Libyan to the public from his Benghazi investigation, and Marcia Blackburn has released the names of researchers in her Planned Parenthood committee: both jeopardized the lives of individuals through this abuse of information. Where was the FBI investigation then? Yesterday I saw the horrified responses from both Darrell Issa and Paul Ryan about Clinton's emails. Pure hypocrisy unless they set their own House in order, perhaps with the help of the FBI.
Sorry, but this whole thing is another manifestation of the endless Clinton witch hunts which sometimes use spectral evidence and other times sift through evidence to reach conclusions that are political propaganda.
As Will Rogers said, "Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." I would vote for Hilary Clinton any day over her inexperienced, unqualified, bigoted competition.
11
That wasn't good and this isn't good. Two wrongs do not make a right - and besides there WAS a bit of uproar that Clinton would have been well aware of at that time.
4
"This legal decision is undoubtedly correct."
I go to the link provided to Benjamin Wittes article. He cites Comey's statements well:
"whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way";
Now if one does not interpret "extremely careless" to mean "grossly negligent", then I suppose U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793 F magically does not apply to HRC.
This editorial board says "undoubtedly correct?"
Huh?
I'm no fan of Trump and not a Republican, but somehow purporting HRC as not having done something criminal is amazing.
I go to the link provided to Benjamin Wittes article. He cites Comey's statements well:
"whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way";
Now if one does not interpret "extremely careless" to mean "grossly negligent", then I suppose U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 793 F magically does not apply to HRC.
This editorial board says "undoubtedly correct?"
Huh?
I'm no fan of Trump and not a Republican, but somehow purporting HRC as not having done something criminal is amazing.
10
Oh. And are we to believe that every SoS before Clinton didn't exercise complete control over what would and wouldn't be saved for "posterity"?
2
Well, it does seem Hillary intended to set up multiple unclassified servers to hold very sensitive information. Either you protect classified information by using the proper methods or you don't.
7
Anybody who works for a state or federal government agency probably has a fairly good idea of why Hillary did what she did. She didn't act reckless, she is not some new-to-technology senior who had no idea what this meant. She probably did it to get around the Freedom of Information Act. And that should worry us. What in those emails did she not want the public to know? Her belief that she has the right to circumvent laws to which most of us have to adhere should also worry us. I know, I know, Hillary fans do not want to hear any of this, but why would you want a president who is either reckless in the handling of classified information OR so arrogant that she thinks that she does not have to follow the law?
As I keep saying about Reagan: if he didn't know about the Iran Contra Affair then he shouldn't have been president; and if he at one point knew about it, but subsequently forgot, then he shouldn't have been president either.
As I keep saying about Reagan: if he didn't know about the Iran Contra Affair then he shouldn't have been president; and if he at one point knew about it, but subsequently forgot, then he shouldn't have been president either.
6
I though Comey's criticism of Hillary Clinton was inappropriate, but was there to provide him political cover for the decision not to recommend prosecution. But, when it comes to voting, I struggle to believe that people will chose Trump over Clinton because of her emails.
1
A day removed, here in Washington DC, we are learning that FBI Director James Comey is going to issue a second statement. As a Black lawyer in Washington DC, this is not surprising, it is analogous to needing a second coat of paint after seeing that what you did failed to cover the stain.
Hillary Clinton committed at least 2 felonies, one of which she did over 110 times if the FBI findings are to be believed. Every time Hillary deleted or transmitted top secret classified information the way she did, that serves as a criminal count.
It was blasphemous for Mr. Comey to poison the well of law enforcement by saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would go after Ms. Clinton, meaning anyone who does is automatically fighting uphill in the court of public opinion. It was not Mr. Comey's job as FBI Director to say what he did.
This entire thing is an outrage, too far gone to stop and given the ignorance, arrogance and incompetence of the establishment news media, a wrong that cannot be righted.
We just witnessed someone get away with committing multiple felonies. From this point on, society will likely be desensitized in ways that make what Hillary was able to pull off, just another day at the office.
How on Earth did we get here?
Hillary Clinton committed at least 2 felonies, one of which she did over 110 times if the FBI findings are to be believed. Every time Hillary deleted or transmitted top secret classified information the way she did, that serves as a criminal count.
It was blasphemous for Mr. Comey to poison the well of law enforcement by saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would go after Ms. Clinton, meaning anyone who does is automatically fighting uphill in the court of public opinion. It was not Mr. Comey's job as FBI Director to say what he did.
This entire thing is an outrage, too far gone to stop and given the ignorance, arrogance and incompetence of the establishment news media, a wrong that cannot be righted.
We just witnessed someone get away with committing multiple felonies. From this point on, society will likely be desensitized in ways that make what Hillary was able to pull off, just another day at the office.
How on Earth did we get here?
12
I do believe that if anyone hacked into Hillary's emails it would have been sold to the RNC for a fortune and been plastered all over the internet, and media by now.
Multiple hacking has happened to our government,i.e. Snowdon, to mention a few. Others have cited the calamities of the Bush Administration and the fact that Colin Powell came out about his use of a private server.
There are no perfect candidates because we all have failings... Check out the history of our Presidents. We know more about Hillary Clinton than any other candidate in the history of this country. No, she is not perfect and she has always been held to a higher standard than any other candidate in the history of this country.
Mr. Comey made a gave error in politicizing his report. We shall see how this influences the outcome of this election.
Multiple hacking has happened to our government,i.e. Snowdon, to mention a few. Others have cited the calamities of the Bush Administration and the fact that Colin Powell came out about his use of a private server.
There are no perfect candidates because we all have failings... Check out the history of our Presidents. We know more about Hillary Clinton than any other candidate in the history of this country. No, she is not perfect and she has always been held to a higher standard than any other candidate in the history of this country.
Mr. Comey made a gave error in politicizing his report. We shall see how this influences the outcome of this election.
3
For those of us, like Hillary, born (well) before, say, 1975, email is a rather NEW thing. MY understanding is that the Secretaries of State who preceded her in office made little (or even NO) use of it.
So...yes, I’m willing to give Hillary the benefit of some doubt: doubt as to whether she understood the very NATURE of electronic security during her tenure at State.
Her ‘carelessness’ was more likely the product of ignorance rather than of any willful disregard for the law.
So...yes, I’m willing to give Hillary the benefit of some doubt: doubt as to whether she understood the very NATURE of electronic security during her tenure at State.
Her ‘carelessness’ was more likely the product of ignorance rather than of any willful disregard for the law.
4
You really are drowning in the Clinton kool aid if you think that her use of a personal server was a "product of ignorance". Just as when Hillary claimed to have legitimately "earned" $100,000 with an investment of just $1000 in a single year, the Hillary e-mail deception and lies is proof positive of her willingness to break the law to suit her own goals.
4
i have read that many other people w high security clearances have
done the very same thing..colin powell for instance..
if i were a republican politician/king maker, i would get busier finding a viable
opponent or starting a third party. trying to bring hillary down into the hole that they are in- well, it just isn't working. it may be that this is her year, her time, her turn.
done the very same thing..colin powell for instance..
if i were a republican politician/king maker, i would get busier finding a viable
opponent or starting a third party. trying to bring hillary down into the hole that they are in- well, it just isn't working. it may be that this is her year, her time, her turn.
1
Comey and Lynch should publicly state that they will not take a position in a Clinton Administration (if she is elected President) and that they will not accept any judicial appointment if HRC is President.
Anything less would confirm that their decision not to indict despite HRC despite overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing is just a quid pro quo for a future job.
Anything less would confirm that their decision not to indict despite HRC despite overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing is just a quid pro quo for a future job.
7
The number of people who will change their minds because of this report is negligible. Clinton haters will seethe and blather more and call this a liberal conspiracy despite the fact that Comey is a Bush appointee, and most of the rest of us will roll our eyes. What she's guilty of mostly is just being stupid in this case. Still our next president -- by a big margin.
3
IF she did not INTEND to be extremely careless but was extremely careless, then she is guilty of misdemeanor crime of handling top secret information extremely carelessly. If you are in doubt, ask Petreus who did not intend to violate the laws of secrecy either, at least, according to him but was convicted of misdemeanor offense. Chelsea Manning is languishing in jail for a similar offense. No fair.
6
"If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment."
I strongly suspect that the NY Times has already said this to and about Hillary many, many times in the past. It doesn't seem to do any good, though.
I strongly suspect that the NY Times has already said this to and about Hillary many, many times in the past. It doesn't seem to do any good, though.
11
Clinton should not be crucified for what others before her have also done. The Republican National Committee's server that allowed political appointees to avoid using government email is just one example that can be cited.
The next person who tries it can be crucified.
But first, can the State Department and other government agencies actually secure their messages in this day and age, AND make the system flexible and convenient enough to use when a Sec State is traveling the world? The current system is neither. I don't know if throwing more money at the problem will help, given the abilities of hackers. Maybe TOP SECRET just ain't what it used to be.
The next person who tries it can be crucified.
But first, can the State Department and other government agencies actually secure their messages in this day and age, AND make the system flexible and convenient enough to use when a Sec State is traveling the world? The current system is neither. I don't know if throwing more money at the problem will help, given the abilities of hackers. Maybe TOP SECRET just ain't what it used to be.
2
Hillary Clinton must be the empress of stealth crime.
She set up an email server in her basement.
George W. Bush reacted to the Saudi attack on September 11 by invading Iraq.
She set up an email server in her basement. Oh, and she probably killed Vince Foster even though the evidence indicates that he killed himself.
George W. Bush let New Orleans drown.
She set up ...
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have bled trillions from our treasury and caused the deaths of over 6,000 American soldiers and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people native to those countries. Invading Iraq might be the stupidest use of American military power in history.
Yes, but she set up ...
Ronald Reagan broke the law (the Boland Amendment) when his people took money from the sale of missiles to Iran (of Axis of Evil fame) and funded right-wing death squads in Central America.
Oh, but she set up ...
Oh, but she ...
Last week, Trey Gowdy of the Gowdy Doody Show closed up shop still fulminating against Secretary Clinton but continuing to do so without credible evidence that she did anything untoward. He did uncover the I-wish-it-were-indictable under-funding of overseas missions by ... drum roll.
Oh, but she ...
Say what? This kaleidoscopic instrument through which you are looking is called vehement equivalence, which presents very big bad objects and very small not so great objects as comparable!
The press will offer this Escher perspective every day until November. Enjoy the view.
She set up an email server in her basement.
George W. Bush reacted to the Saudi attack on September 11 by invading Iraq.
She set up an email server in her basement. Oh, and she probably killed Vince Foster even though the evidence indicates that he killed himself.
George W. Bush let New Orleans drown.
She set up ...
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have bled trillions from our treasury and caused the deaths of over 6,000 American soldiers and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people native to those countries. Invading Iraq might be the stupidest use of American military power in history.
Yes, but she set up ...
Ronald Reagan broke the law (the Boland Amendment) when his people took money from the sale of missiles to Iran (of Axis of Evil fame) and funded right-wing death squads in Central America.
Oh, but she set up ...
Oh, but she ...
Last week, Trey Gowdy of the Gowdy Doody Show closed up shop still fulminating against Secretary Clinton but continuing to do so without credible evidence that she did anything untoward. He did uncover the I-wish-it-were-indictable under-funding of overseas missions by ... drum roll.
Oh, but she ...
Say what? This kaleidoscopic instrument through which you are looking is called vehement equivalence, which presents very big bad objects and very small not so great objects as comparable!
The press will offer this Escher perspective every day until November. Enjoy the view.
8
I'm surprised there is not more mention of an aspect I find deeply troubling.....namely, the old "speaking truth to power". They say it was common knowledge she had her own server yet no one apparently felt they could confront her about it.............where was the IT Dept. of the State Dept.? "No, Madam Secretary, that is not secure, violates policy, and you can’t do it."
I suspect the Clintons, behind their soft touch, folksy exterior, have sharp claws indeed.
I suspect the Clintons, behind their soft touch, folksy exterior, have sharp claws indeed.
5
Need to be a serious word parser to keep up with the Clintons. I guess Comey figures there is some clear distinction between him using the words "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent". Its up there with "depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is". Also extremely awkward that Comey had to come out with a recommendation that covered for the Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting but also CLEARLY got Hilary off - before that Lynch meeting I don't think he would have stated "no reasonable prosecutor". Good to see the Clintons are still above the law.
7
After highly critical reports from the State Department and the FBI, you might think the honorable thing for HRC to do would be to step aside and allow the Democrats to choose a less troubled candidate.
Dream on.
Dream on.
6
As much as I dislike the notion of Trump as your President, Clinton is not far behind. America has done a disservice to the world in potentially allowing these 2 dishonest people be at the helm of the most powerful nation on earth.
8
Well, no. This was a criminal investigation. It was the job of Comey and the FBI (and ultimately the Department of Justice) to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to charge Clinton with a crime. Comey and the FBI determined that there was not. That should have been the end of the matter. Instead, Comey went on to criticize harshly Clinton's behavior. I agree that his criticism was on target. She was indeed reckless. But it was not his place to say so. In straying beyond the legal issues at hand and injecting himself into the political process, Comey exceeded the bounds of propriety. No doubt he was trying to appease his fellow Republicans who, he knew only too well, would be incensed at his legal determination.
3
SOME folks want to elect only PERFECT human beings to the presidency. Hmmm. I guess JESUS CHRIST is the only TRUE candidate, eh? Who really is perfect out there? Hillary? No. Donald must be perfect. That's it. But wait. In a book titled "The Coming of the Third Reich," Richard Evans writes: "Anti-Semitic parties introduced a new, rabble-rousing, demagogic style of politics that freed itself from the customary restraints of political decorum" (Page 31). Sound familiar? Is history repeating itself? Have Republicans not read about the Third Reich?
1
The fact is that Hillary Clinton has been far less than completely truthful regarding important email subject matter issues during her entire political campaign with Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic Party nominee for president. As the Editorial Board summarizes: "Mr. Comey’s conclusions — legal recommendation aside — can be seen as nothing less than a censure of Mrs. Clinton’s judgment."
Outstanding questions regarding Mrs. Clinton’s judgment need to be urgently resolved before the Democratic Party Convention beginning July 25th. Accordingly, the New York Times should re-run its editorial published on Feb. 26 entitled "Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts." This Editorial Board was making reference to 51 speeches that Mrs. Clinton made to Wall Street banks and other business interests in 2014 and 2015 behind closed doors in exchange for $11 million added to her personal wealth. Senator Sanders has repeatedly called for her to release the transcripts of these "Shakespearean speeches.” In response, Hillary Clinton has "stonewalled" both the Editorial Board of the New York Times and Bernie Sanders. This is no longer acceptable by any standard or excuse.
Today’s editorial ends with a political direction statement to Hillary Clinton: "If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment." Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts.
Outstanding questions regarding Mrs. Clinton’s judgment need to be urgently resolved before the Democratic Party Convention beginning July 25th. Accordingly, the New York Times should re-run its editorial published on Feb. 26 entitled "Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts." This Editorial Board was making reference to 51 speeches that Mrs. Clinton made to Wall Street banks and other business interests in 2014 and 2015 behind closed doors in exchange for $11 million added to her personal wealth. Senator Sanders has repeatedly called for her to release the transcripts of these "Shakespearean speeches.” In response, Hillary Clinton has "stonewalled" both the Editorial Board of the New York Times and Bernie Sanders. This is no longer acceptable by any standard or excuse.
Today’s editorial ends with a political direction statement to Hillary Clinton: "If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment." Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts.
6
You say "she has done damage to her reputation by failing to conform to the established security policies." I read Comey's report, and I didn't see that. He said those practices were bad, but said nothing to address the claim that Powell and Rice were doing essentially the same thing. Like Clinton, they were both told to update their security protocols, and neglected to do so. This still looks to me like a case of Clinton being singled out for following procedures that everyone else followed and were not censured for.
2
Is there some standard for how the government wants its employees to handle email?
Is it comprehensible? Is it consistent from one administration to the next?
If so, please promulgate. If not, let's stop the endless moaning about this and move on!
Is it comprehensible? Is it consistent from one administration to the next?
If so, please promulgate. If not, let's stop the endless moaning about this and move on!
1
What do we do with the lies she told about it? Just move on and rejoice that we get to vote for a liar, i.e., someone who by definition cannot be trusted? Oh, hooray!
3
It's really interesting to watch people on both sides of an issue defend their candidate for things they would demonize the other candidate for. There is no moral consistency. If there is anything I've learned this election cycle, which I should have learned long ago, as long as voters look at elections as a choice of either a republican or democrat, most of us will lose. Working people, the backbone of this great country, don't get any representation in government. Apparently, we can't afford it. We don't live in a democracy--we live in a plutocracy.
6
The whole thing is completely overblown. Pick any Senator or major cabinet member over the last 15 years and go through all of their tens of thousands of emails and I am sure you will fine more than a few that containing "classified" or even "top secret" information. Again, Hillary Clinton comes under a level of scrutiny like no other. Lets go through John McCain's or Condoleezza Rice's or Dick Cheney's thousands of emails and see how many we can find that contain classified or top secret information. Romney actually deleted all the data and emails on the servers he used for email as Governor.
1
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. - James Comey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, will Hillary be sanctioned administratively and stripped of her security clearance? If yes, then she cannot run for office of president.
The fat lady has not sung on this issue yet, people. Wait for July surprise on 7/25 from Team Sanders.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The question is, will Hillary be sanctioned administratively and stripped of her security clearance? If yes, then she cannot run for office of president.
The fat lady has not sung on this issue yet, people. Wait for July surprise on 7/25 from Team Sanders.
7
Charge her with felony mishandling of classified information and with lying about turning over all her work emails. Then, offer a plea bargain to misdemeanor offense if her 'intent' cannot be established. 3 to 5 years of jail time and community service for the rest of her life. That will be the just dessert.
3
I meant to say, 'just deserts'. Oops.
4
Waiting in the on-deck circle at the Democratic Convention is Bernie Sanders.
Wake up delegates and super delegates!
Wake up delegates and super delegates!
4
What about the 33,000 missing emails? She withheld them for a reason, and the FBI should have demanded access.
12
MARK IT DOWN! July 5, 2016. A day that will live in infamy. The Day which Justice for the American people DIED!
FBI and its agents had a choice. Take the honorable high road to protect and preserve the integrity of American Justice for the Common Citizen
or
Choose the path of being Back Stabbing Evil Assassins of Law for special criminal interest of a fascist elitist.
America can now point to the day the Common American Citizen can no longer expect the FBI to be above approach or honorable!
FBI and its agents had a choice. Take the honorable high road to protect and preserve the integrity of American Justice for the Common Citizen
or
Choose the path of being Back Stabbing Evil Assassins of Law for special criminal interest of a fascist elitist.
America can now point to the day the Common American Citizen can no longer expect the FBI to be above approach or honorable!
8
One thing is sure: the Navy Petty Officer who was convicted for far less than what HRC did is not happy this morning. This whole thing stinks. To top it off, just a few hours after the announcement, she jumps on AF 1 with the President to go campaign, all on our dime, where he lauds her character, judgement and qualifications to be president. What a country, what a deal. Absolutely amazing.
6
In terms of pure politics, the key question is ... Will the FBI's judgments change anyone's minds about Clinton? Considering what Comey said was evident last year to anyone following the story, I find it hard to see how. And I don't see this helping Trump because he tosses about so many outrageous false accusations about Clinton, this true one will disappear into the Donald's tweet circus. A fact free campaign doesn't know what to do with an actual fact that might help them, and their own lack of credibility will diminish the power of its truth.
Oh, she's not qualified to be President alright. She knew good and well that setting up that server was illegal and was an overt attempt to circumvent FOIA. What makes you think she won't act with the same contempt for the American people if she becomes President?
11
Comey presented factual evidence that Hillary lied to us voters repeatedly about her email server.Hillary also exposed secret material to hackers and foreign governments.His summary is she lied,was reckless and careless with top secret information.Her lying fits a pattern she's had all the way back to her Watergate Committee days in 1973.Yet the Dems want her to be the next President.Is this the "Twilight Zone"?If elected in November,how can we citizens trust she will ever tell us the truth about anything?I'm no Trump supporter,but I just cannot vote for a person who has lied to the public for 43 years.
5
First it was about a non government email address and then it was about her server and who knows what it is going to be about next. Anyone in business knows that effective people will press any ambiguous rules to get things done. Hundreds of people saw the emails and did not see anything wrong. They will investigate and go after everything she does. The Clinton's are too careful to do anything illegal.
I think the biggest problem with the emails is the concept of emails. They are so impersonal. As Secretary of State, she should use paper notes. They are more personal. People pay attention to paper. It has dignity. I delete most of my emails before I read them. Paper notes you have to open, look at and then crumple them up to throw away. I think the medium of electronic communication is dangerous to how humans see the world. I really don't see anything wrong with her handling of this controversy. I just wished she used pen and paper more often.
I think the biggest problem with the emails is the concept of emails. They are so impersonal. As Secretary of State, she should use paper notes. They are more personal. People pay attention to paper. It has dignity. I delete most of my emails before I read them. Paper notes you have to open, look at and then crumple them up to throw away. I think the medium of electronic communication is dangerous to how humans see the world. I really don't see anything wrong with her handling of this controversy. I just wished she used pen and paper more often.
1
Meanwhile, Trump is praising Saddam Hussein and the NYT has a piece about Trump's long history of misleading both government officials and the people who invest in his real estate deals (Trump comes out ahead and they lose their money through his manipulation of bankruptcy laws). And that is just literally this morning's Trump news, which doesn't scratch the surface of the litany of truly scary things Trump has said to date.
But let's all throw a fit because maybe some enemy read an email -- a factoid Comey throws out there as his personal speculation because, yeah, we need the head of the FBI speculating about stuff in politically laced speeches.
I just don't care about Hillary's emails. Trump just praised Saddam Hussein. I'm worried my family should be building a bomb shelter if Trump wins.
But let's all throw a fit because maybe some enemy read an email -- a factoid Comey throws out there as his personal speculation because, yeah, we need the head of the FBI speculating about stuff in politically laced speeches.
I just don't care about Hillary's emails. Trump just praised Saddam Hussein. I'm worried my family should be building a bomb shelter if Trump wins.
1
Since you live in Texas your family should probably build that shelter regardless of who wins.
3
Extremely careless. Ergo, extremely unfit for the office of president.
End of story.
End of story.
9
Donald Trump has such ego that refuses to seek any advice from his political advisors conducting his presidential campaign. This is how he’ll conduct himself at The White House. He’ll turn hostile to any recommendations made by his Cabinet as well as our Armed forces because he knows what’s best. For these reasons, Donald Trump has become a threat to America.
President Obama knows what’s at stake; he’s endorsed Hillary Clinton and campaigned for her to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president since he t knows Donald Trump wants his selective group of “white Americans” followers become the only habitants of this country; that all immigrants be expelled; go back to where they came from. America was created by a diversity of people.
Clinton is an untrustworthy presidential candidate who’s made irresponsible decisions but she’s suffered the consequences and now, her presidential candidacy is at stake. She’s run the miles; knows the American people have put her character under the “microscope.” In my opinion, Hillary Clinton will work hard to become a good president.
President Obama knows what’s at stake; he’s endorsed Hillary Clinton and campaigned for her to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president since he t knows Donald Trump wants his selective group of “white Americans” followers become the only habitants of this country; that all immigrants be expelled; go back to where they came from. America was created by a diversity of people.
Clinton is an untrustworthy presidential candidate who’s made irresponsible decisions but she’s suffered the consequences and now, her presidential candidacy is at stake. She’s run the miles; knows the American people have put her character under the “microscope.” In my opinion, Hillary Clinton will work hard to become a good president.
Why would she suddenly care about what the American people think, since by and large they're not the ones lining her pockets? Her behavior throughout her entire career suggests the opposite--where is the evidence for this abrupt change of heart you serenely predict?
4
Clinton was reckless certainly with the email business, according to the FBI anyway, however her intellect and experience are un-impeachable. She is probably lucky that her alleged opponent in the national election is plainly unsuitable for any elected office in this country.
1
When has the FBI become interpreter of legalities of the laws? Only when the justice department authorizes that it is ok if they decide what will be prosecuted and not.
Use your write in voting power for President in 2016-
Use your write in voting power for President in 2016-
1
This is really a fundamental disagreement between the state department and the FBI's definition of what is considered CLASSIFIED elevated to the national stage and politicized and it behooves The New York Times editorial board to point this out rather than jumping on the bandwagon of condemnation. This is the basis of Hillary Clinton's statement that she did not use her email for classified information, she did not lie.
When W and Cheney are behind bars for the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands, we will then concern ourselves with Hillary's email account.
4
Millions of emails went missing during the W. administration. No one was prosecuted. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html
A CIA top secret operative was deliberately outed to punish a former Ambassador for telling the truth, and Scooter Libby was pardoned. No charges at all for Rove.
The government servers have been repeatedly hacked, but Comey is complaining that maybe, just maybe, an enemy might have possibly, but he doesn't really know, hacked some of Hillary's emails.
I think a double standard is applied to Hillary.
A CIA top secret operative was deliberately outed to punish a former Ambassador for telling the truth, and Scooter Libby was pardoned. No charges at all for Rove.
The government servers have been repeatedly hacked, but Comey is complaining that maybe, just maybe, an enemy might have possibly, but he doesn't really know, hacked some of Hillary's emails.
I think a double standard is applied to Hillary.
6
This should help the NEVER HILLARY crowd.
1
@chris
Of course people who think this way will be "helped", they've been waiting for an execution all along -- But that still doesn't make Trump any more appealing.
Of course people who think this way will be "helped", they've been waiting for an execution all along -- But that still doesn't make Trump any more appealing.
1
In most companies, the IT department ensures that secure practices are being followed. That seems like the missing link here.
(And were her emails spared from Wikileaks because they were on a different server?)
(And were her emails spared from Wikileaks because they were on a different server?)
2
It's not too late for someone, either the AG or Obama or the Democratic Party leaders, to do the right thing and tell HRC that she is losing her security clearance and must resign. She has also probably perjured herself during her statements to Congress and the FBI. We the People need to show the govt. and the Democratic Party that we are outraged by their tolerance of Hillary's official conduct and do not accept her nomination. And Republicans ought to do the same thing, to let their leaders know that they have to come up with some alternative to the lunatic they are about to run.
3
When will the government get back to doing the work of the people? Citizens need to make our government work for us again. Already, I see another investigation in the works. Millions will be spent by the Repubs on this issue. While I am seriously outraged that HRC did not follow protocol regarding her emails, what about student loans, banking regulations, Flint, health care, education, gun safety, housing, and food safety to name a few. Get back to doing the work of the people!
1
Can't anyone at the NYT write about Colin Powell and his abuses of emails? Or Condoleezza Rice? Anything to shut up about Hillary R Clinton. I thought the NYT supported Mrs Clinton! largely the coverage you give her is negative.Most of the time this paper just yammers on about Trump which makes his supporters even more loyal. Please! Give Mrs Clinton a break.
1
Powell and Rice both conducted state department business with private email accounts (Powell's was AOL!) Both deleted emails. Rove deleted 22 million emails off his private server owned by the RNC. What I do not understand is why HRC is held to a higher standard than other office holders? This is obviously against the rules, but a universal practice. And a practice taken up because outdated government systems made doing the state department work practically impossible. To me, this is yet another example of how democrats, and specifically HRC is held to a ludicrously high standard.
2
Let us not forget that James Comey is a rock-ribbed, card-carrying Republican. His speech yesterday was nothing less than a political screed, designed to give his partisans campaign ammunition. Under normal circumstances, when the FBI concludes an investigation without an indictment, there is no public announcement. The target of the investigation may be informed, but that is all. Director Comey outstepped the bounds of his office by offering his personal, political opinions on Secretary Clinton and her staff, for purely political purposes.
1
What does it say about Obama liberals who are stating their intentions to knowingly do the wrong thing on November 8th and vote for a felon?
9
First, I agree with an earlier comment that it is not the FBI's role to chastise anyone, but to simply determine whether or not they broke a law. Comey's speech was unbelievably political.
Secondly, although I agree that HRC used poor judgement in sending and receiving classified emails on a private server, I want to know whether sending classified email over a State Department server is allowed, and whether that is any more secure? How does classified information usually get communicated within the government?
Finally, the first step in learning a lesson from making a mistake is to admit that you made the mistake, which she has done. I have NEVER heard Trump admit a mistake! Does ANYONE think he could learn from his mistakes? In addition, she cooperated with the investigation, she didn't try to hide anything (unlike Nixon who many people in this section have compared this to), and she has not attacked the people investigating her, unlike Trump who attacked the judge handling the university scam.
There is not a president in history who has not made a bad decision. They are human after all, doing a very complex job. The question Americans have to ask themselves is whether a person is knowledgeable and intelligent enough to ensure that they make correct decisions more often than bad ones. If the choice is Trump v. Clinton there is absolutely no contest by this test. Trump is a clueless idiot and must not be allowed anywhere near the presidency!
Secondly, although I agree that HRC used poor judgement in sending and receiving classified emails on a private server, I want to know whether sending classified email over a State Department server is allowed, and whether that is any more secure? How does classified information usually get communicated within the government?
Finally, the first step in learning a lesson from making a mistake is to admit that you made the mistake, which she has done. I have NEVER heard Trump admit a mistake! Does ANYONE think he could learn from his mistakes? In addition, she cooperated with the investigation, she didn't try to hide anything (unlike Nixon who many people in this section have compared this to), and she has not attacked the people investigating her, unlike Trump who attacked the judge handling the university scam.
There is not a president in history who has not made a bad decision. They are human after all, doing a very complex job. The question Americans have to ask themselves is whether a person is knowledgeable and intelligent enough to ensure that they make correct decisions more often than bad ones. If the choice is Trump v. Clinton there is absolutely no contest by this test. Trump is a clueless idiot and must not be allowed anywhere near the presidency!
2
Donald Trump, whom I abhor, is right in one aspect: The system IS rigged. BUT -- it's rigged AGAINST Hillary Clinton. How else can one explain the fact that Colin Powell and Condi Rice were not investigated over their use of a private email server while Secretary of State, let alone with the same zeal the FBI investigated Clinton? If the FBI were fair and impartial, they would be delving into the Republicans' use of private email servers just as thoroughly. But, no, they didn't. So, the system is rigged...in favor of Republicans!
1
"Was there no one whose job it should have been to tell Mrs. Clinton that even she was not allowed to email for governmental purposes using her own private servers?"
She was the boss. I suspect everybody else assumed the boss wouldn't be doing it if it were not allowed. Many people raised eyebrows, and some even told her it was improper. But she was the boss, and she told her top aides to figure out some way to do it the way she wanted. And so they did.
She was the boss. I suspect everybody else assumed the boss wouldn't be doing it if it were not allowed. Many people raised eyebrows, and some even told her it was improper. But she was the boss, and she told her top aides to figure out some way to do it the way she wanted. And so they did.
3
Did anyone ever face prosecution and serve jail time for Iran Contra, or when CIA agent Valerie Plame was puted becaiuse her husband wrote a scathing article in the NYT about the Iraq War?.....I beleive the answer is no...
What Clinton did with her emails was jaywalking compared to Iran Contra and Valerie Plame's outing..
What Clinton did with her emails was jaywalking compared to Iran Contra and Valerie Plame's outing..
1
And are any of these people currently running for President, or even living? I'm surprised you haven't dislocated every joint in your body with such a ridiculous stretch.
2
I'm no psychologist but I've noticed that extremely confident people, even very bright ones, often do things that are just plain dumb. Maybe if you believe in yourself strongly enough you stop looking at your own actions critically and eventually get sloppy. This certainly happened with Hillary Clinton.
James Comey was fair, both in his assessment of the situation and his strong rebuke. Clinton will learn from this. Let's hope others who work with sensitive information will also.
James Comey was fair, both in his assessment of the situation and his strong rebuke. Clinton will learn from this. Let's hope others who work with sensitive information will also.
3
"...the worst possible good news [for] Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign..."
"Findings Hurt Many of Clinton’s Claims"
One can almost hear the soul searching that went into these two twisted lines trying to "explain" how we should understand the words of James Comey.
"Findings Hurt Many of Clinton’s Claims"
One can almost hear the soul searching that went into these two twisted lines trying to "explain" how we should understand the words of James Comey.
1
Martin O'Malley looks pretty good now. How unfortunate that the Clinton Wasserman Schulz team blocked others, including Joe Biden from running. Mrs. Clinton is a terrible candidate. She should do the patriotic thing and remove herself from the race and allow an open convention.
2
I'm amazed by the would-be "lawyers" on the right who have no idea what they are talking about yet keep recycling the conservative talk show points.
This idea that material that is classified AFTER the fact should have absolutely been known to be classified by Sec Clinton borders on a demand for magical mind-reading. It's the kind of pretzel logic twisting of the law used to attack Democrats and defend Republicans doing the same thing.
The lack of understanding of the difference between ignorance of the law and intent would be laughable if it wasn't terrifying. Take the following situation: You swing a shovel and hit someone in the head with it.
If you intended to hit them in the head with the shovel but didn't know it's illegal to do so, that's ignorance of the law and no excuse and an assault.
If, however, you accidentally hit them in the head with the shovel, had no intention of hurting or hitting anyone, then you lack intent. Regardless of whether or not you knew it's illegal to hit someone in the head with a shovel, it's not a crime (assuming that criminal negligence isn't a factor). It's just an accident.
Clearly, Sec. Clinton had no intention of committing a violation. Whether or not she was ignorant of the law becomes IRRELEVANT!
But, of course, the Right has just lost its last line of attack on Sec Clinton, with Benghazi gone, so they are fuming with impotent rage as daily Trump either puts his foot in his mouth or new scandals are revealed.
This idea that material that is classified AFTER the fact should have absolutely been known to be classified by Sec Clinton borders on a demand for magical mind-reading. It's the kind of pretzel logic twisting of the law used to attack Democrats and defend Republicans doing the same thing.
The lack of understanding of the difference between ignorance of the law and intent would be laughable if it wasn't terrifying. Take the following situation: You swing a shovel and hit someone in the head with it.
If you intended to hit them in the head with the shovel but didn't know it's illegal to do so, that's ignorance of the law and no excuse and an assault.
If, however, you accidentally hit them in the head with the shovel, had no intention of hurting or hitting anyone, then you lack intent. Regardless of whether or not you knew it's illegal to hit someone in the head with a shovel, it's not a crime (assuming that criminal negligence isn't a factor). It's just an accident.
Clearly, Sec. Clinton had no intention of committing a violation. Whether or not she was ignorant of the law becomes IRRELEVANT!
But, of course, the Right has just lost its last line of attack on Sec Clinton, with Benghazi gone, so they are fuming with impotent rage as daily Trump either puts his foot in his mouth or new scandals are revealed.
1
So when I'm stopped for speeding I can just say, "but Officer, I had no intention of committing a violation"? Good to know, thanks.
3
No, Margaret, you can't because breaking speed limits is what we call a "strict liability" offense. Meaning, intent is not an element. Please everyone stop with the arm-chair lawyering. Just admit you don't understand how this stuff works, and try to educate yourself. I think you'll be surprised at how predictable the FBI's announcement was.
And intent wasn't the only element in Hillary's felonies.
In my law office, I use a standing desk, with no armchairs.
;-)
Hillary committed a felony, she acted with "extreme carelessness" according to the director of the FBI which is a requisite characteristic of gross negligence.
In my law office, I use a standing desk, with no armchairs.
;-)
Hillary committed a felony, she acted with "extreme carelessness" according to the director of the FBI which is a requisite characteristic of gross negligence.
3
The FBI is playing for Donald. Judgmental without illegality. What are they playing at? . How many did that before? Has any damage been proven? . It should be read as no crime existing. Period. Meanwhile what is going on with Donny taxes, bankruptcies, and clear intent to bankrupt democracy? And please, Mass Media, cut the manure!
1
POLITICAL CLARITY? Oh Yeah! The FBI, along with the CIA, NSA and Secret Service are all tasked with guarding the security of top government officials, such as the Secretary of State. They were AWOL for having failed to be proactive in developing a security play with Hillary's IT staff to transition to the government server. Now they're playing CYA by blaming Hillary for their failure. They're stuck in a pre-9/11 modality, unable to connect the dots. If we can't protect the members of the US Cabinet, how can we trust the security agencies to protect the nation against another terrorist attack? The security agencies need to stop hiding behind a nasty game of political gotcha to focus on their raison d'etre: The security of the nation. Political clarity? FBI heal thyseif!
1
It would appear that the GOP will have to win the presidency the old fashioned way, appeal to more people so they get more people to vote for Donald than her..
1
It's pathetic to see the powerful New York Times editorial board literally groveling and making an apologetic mea culpa on the behalf of Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton is a political figurine. She stands for absolutely nothing and has no character whatsoever. She is a manifestation of everything that is wrong in politics. As for the Times defense, this is nothing more than an attempt to justify their own interior agenda. One that doesn't make sense nor have any real meaning.
That all said, Clinton may have escaped (again) the title of committing a "crime" yesterday, absolutely a political double standard, but the overall verdict was like ripping a bandaid off a gapping wound. Inspector Comey's findings illustrate that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing and has lied to us, her Americans that she is seeking the highest office to speak for, every step of the way. But we knew this. Anyone not living under a rock knows what they are going to get from Hillary Clinton. At this point it's just semantics; did she receive, send, delete, etc. She did things that no person in that role should do. It is not ok.
And for those that justify her absolutely obscene and reckless behavior, no, this doesn't make her better than Trump still. He has not come close to committing a crime of national security.
And at a time when establishment politicians are tone deaf to the world, Obama get's on his horse and campaigns with Clinton on this very same day.
That all said, Clinton may have escaped (again) the title of committing a "crime" yesterday, absolutely a political double standard, but the overall verdict was like ripping a bandaid off a gapping wound. Inspector Comey's findings illustrate that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing and has lied to us, her Americans that she is seeking the highest office to speak for, every step of the way. But we knew this. Anyone not living under a rock knows what they are going to get from Hillary Clinton. At this point it's just semantics; did she receive, send, delete, etc. She did things that no person in that role should do. It is not ok.
And for those that justify her absolutely obscene and reckless behavior, no, this doesn't make her better than Trump still. He has not come close to committing a crime of national security.
And at a time when establishment politicians are tone deaf to the world, Obama get's on his horse and campaigns with Clinton on this very same day.
4
What was the very first thing Donald Trump did after the FBI's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton came down? He fired off one of his notorious tweets whining that the system is rigged. Hasn't Bernie Sanders been complaining about the exact same thing for almost a year--the system is rigged, the system is rigged............
Isn't it odd that two presidential candidates who are polar opposites on every issue imaginable can't stop whining and complaining that the deck is stacked against them??? Alpha males Sanders and Trump promptly retreated into their comfort zone of denial, refusing to acknowledge that they've been outmaneuvered by a woman.
Isn't it odd that two presidential candidates who are polar opposites on every issue imaginable can't stop whining and complaining that the deck is stacked against them??? Alpha males Sanders and Trump promptly retreated into their comfort zone of denial, refusing to acknowledge that they've been outmaneuvered by a woman.
1
We're the "hostile actors" who might have gained access to Secretary Clinton's server operatives of the RNC? Let's start another press inspired rumor that has been the hallmark of the presidential campaign, won't we? CNN and Fox News will grab this thread of a sound bight and spin it into a another yarn to try and choke this most experienced of candidates.
1
Bernie's questioning of Ms. Clinton's judgment was and is exactly on point. If the other side had nominated someone a little less scary I would sit this one out.
3
She's our Nixon.
"Evasive" "careless" "not forthright".
Comey likely made the right decision. But her actions obviously anger him & stick in his craw.
I remember reading Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary "A Woman In Charge" which is largely sympathetic. I came away thinking Hillary is self-involved, ambitious & probably well meaning. I also thought she isn't particularly ethical. And most of all she isn't particularly intelligent. All her life she's been driven & hardworking but she doesn't have a first class mind. Bernstein frequently compared her intellectually to her husband - unfavorably. Intellectually, she's no Bill Clinton. Nor is she as intelligent or disciplined as President Obama.
From the outset, this was an overwhelmingly stupid decision an intelligent person would have known could become a national security disaster leading to her resignation or prosecution. Why take such a stupid risk?
She has poor judgement. We've seen this about her again and again.
I'll vote for her because I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. But her behavior is shocking & I have huge reservations about her ability to be president. She's a poor choice.
This once again brings to mind Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby": "They were careless people, Tom & Daisy - they smashed up things & creatures & then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together & let other people clean up the mess they had made."
"Evasive" "careless" "not forthright".
Comey likely made the right decision. But her actions obviously anger him & stick in his craw.
I remember reading Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary "A Woman In Charge" which is largely sympathetic. I came away thinking Hillary is self-involved, ambitious & probably well meaning. I also thought she isn't particularly ethical. And most of all she isn't particularly intelligent. All her life she's been driven & hardworking but she doesn't have a first class mind. Bernstein frequently compared her intellectually to her husband - unfavorably. Intellectually, she's no Bill Clinton. Nor is she as intelligent or disciplined as President Obama.
From the outset, this was an overwhelmingly stupid decision an intelligent person would have known could become a national security disaster leading to her resignation or prosecution. Why take such a stupid risk?
She has poor judgement. We've seen this about her again and again.
I'll vote for her because I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. But her behavior is shocking & I have huge reservations about her ability to be president. She's a poor choice.
This once again brings to mind Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby": "They were careless people, Tom & Daisy - they smashed up things & creatures & then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together & let other people clean up the mess they had made."
4
Pull Hillary's security clearance, Ms. Lynch. After all, Comey alluded to this as an appropriate action even though there may be no grounds for a criminal prosecution. Then let Obama endorse Sanders asap.
2
I think the FBI Director did not get it right when he said the primary reason for not recommending an indictment was because there was not an intent to break laws. The law was clear. Do not take classified or secret government information from its secure place and put it into an unsecure place. Hillary Clinton and or her staff at her direction intentionally took classified and secret information from a secured place and transferred it to an unsecure place which put American security at risk. Whether or not the information was hacked by our nations enemies, although not conclusively proven to have happened, probably did happen and is untraceable. Hillary Clinton is basically an unindicted criminal who has put our country at risk while she was in a position of trust and should not be elected President. How many people do you know who have broken laws and were given a pass simply because they said they didn't intend to break the law which was an obvious lie because they did intend to break the law?
1
"I'm sorry, but you do not keep a private server in your home to do the taxpayer's business."
I guess that depends on who "you" is.
I guess that depends on who "you" is.
4
Perhaps experience does not equate with wisdom and good judgment;after all, our most experienced candidate ever--serving in the House, the Senate, as minister Russia, and, coincidentally, as Secretary of State--was Buchanan. And we all know how great a president he was.
2
“extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” = criminal neglect -- intentional or not. I am not a Trump fan and will not vote for him but this along with the Lynch/Clinton meeting does appear to suggest that the system is rigged.
1
Didn't Colin Powell have his own email server? Why isn't he being persecuted like this? Hillary Clinton made a mistake. Donald Trump IS a mistake.
3
Because he didn't, and you should know this by now, before you spout nonsense. It's not like the information is hard to find. But don't let facts get in the way of your irrelevant argument.
3
Powell didn't have his own server but he did use private e-mail - which was not unusual. Her comment is not irrelevant. Your comment is not clarifying.
2
Last I heard, there were national party conventions coming up. That means Donald Trump is not the only possible alternative to Hillary Clinton.
Both parties still have a chance to correct course.
Both parties still have a chance to correct course.
4
The ability of The Times and like minded Hillary sycophants to excuse any and all crooked personal, public and political behavior by the Clintons is beyond comprehension. The F.B.I. director came within a whisker of recommending that Hillary be indicted, but backed off. The fix was in; why else would Obama be scheduled for a campaign appearance with Hillary in North Carolina mere hours after the decision was announced? Air Force One does not ramp up for flight in scant hours. Nor does a presidential trip. Shame on the partisan New York Times for not recognizing and publishing the obvious. You have forfeited all journalistic credibility and integrity. A real crook will now occupy the White House, with your full endorsement.
8
I'm tired of hearing about Hillary's damned e-mails. The Republican party gave us Dick Cheney, the Bush administration, and now are flaunting Donald Trump. What kind of poor judgement is that!
6
The director of the FBI gave his personal opinion at a press conference. It was improper and should be condemned. The FBI doesn't issue opinions, personal or otherwise, for obvious reasons. Not even a reprimand? If it was a minor employee they would have been fired on the spot and so should he.
He is certainly aware of what he was giving to the Republican Party in it's fight against Hillary and it's naive to think otherwise.
Comey was disappointed and instead of clearing things up he took advantage of the opportunity to bloody the already polluted water.
He is certainly aware of what he was giving to the Republican Party in it's fight against Hillary and it's naive to think otherwise.
Comey was disappointed and instead of clearing things up he took advantage of the opportunity to bloody the already polluted water.
6
I very much wonder at his personal animus towards Hillary Clinton. Would he have excoriated a white male Republican politician in the same way? Are there any similar FBI investigations of the millions of deleted emails from the Bush administration (immediately before Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State), or of any Republican secretary of state or the releases of confidential/sensitive information by Republican congresspeople in the last few years? Is the FBI partisan or prejudiced against women?
Trump has advocated for a range of illegal activities including war crimes like torture, murdering the families of terrorists from their babies to their grandmothers, blocking immigrants based on their religion, etc. Why would the FBI director support him?
Trump has advocated for a range of illegal activities including war crimes like torture, murdering the families of terrorists from their babies to their grandmothers, blocking immigrants based on their religion, etc. Why would the FBI director support him?
2
If Mrs. Clinton had used the U.S. Postal Service to convey her “top secret” messages the same way that this good dog and I do every day, no one other than the recipient of her letters and packages would have been the wiser; and the nation’s secrets, such as they are, would have remained secure. Millions, maybe billions, of emails go lost throughout the world every day. The Post Office, on a bad day, maybe loses a few thousand.
My mail is delivered by a guy named Frank. He frequently taps on my door to check on how this dog and I are doing. When it comes to handling top-secret messages, I’ll take Frank over the FBI and the State Department every day of the week.
My mail is delivered by a guy named Frank. He frequently taps on my door to check on how this dog and I are doing. When it comes to handling top-secret messages, I’ll take Frank over the FBI and the State Department every day of the week.
1
Given the clear censure by the head of the FBI, HRC should drop out of the race. Comey may have declined to recommend an indictment for HRC, but based on his comments, he was clearly making an exception. Why? I suspect that he, like most public officials, don't want to take the responsibility of interfering with presidential politics. Maybe if she were running for dog catcher somewhere in NY, he would have indicted. But the burden of recommending an indictment for the presumed nominee of the ruling party would have been a heavy burden.
While I agree with much of the EB's position here, it is wrong in saying Comey's legal decision was undoubtedly correct. His own words impeach his decision not to recommend indictment. HRC's decision to use an e-mail server of her own creation was not careless, it was deliberate and she was warned several times not to do it. It was also against policy of the state department and her boss.
I suggest for those wanting a more objective view that they read the following editorial:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-clinton-standard-1467759942
But the bottom line: HRC should withdraw. She isn't fit. And the e-mail server is simply one more in a long line of her misdeeds.
While I agree with much of the EB's position here, it is wrong in saying Comey's legal decision was undoubtedly correct. His own words impeach his decision not to recommend indictment. HRC's decision to use an e-mail server of her own creation was not careless, it was deliberate and she was warned several times not to do it. It was also against policy of the state department and her boss.
I suggest for those wanting a more objective view that they read the following editorial:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jim-comeys-clinton-standard-1467759942
But the bottom line: HRC should withdraw. She isn't fit. And the e-mail server is simply one more in a long line of her misdeeds.
2
Voters may find fault with Hillary having bent the email server rules like her predecessors. We also know that government servers are no more secure than the ones she was using. Many have been hacked without problem. This only became an election issue because the failed Benghazi Political Assassination Committee had nothing more to offer.
The pressure from the hard right for an indictment over this bureaucratic trivia has been typical and predictable. Also understandable are the die-hard Bernie fans who are crushed because an indictment was Bernie's last great hope for the nomination. However, Bernie himself said it correctly - there are far more important issues facing the American electorate.
The pressure from the hard right for an indictment over this bureaucratic trivia has been typical and predictable. Also understandable are the die-hard Bernie fans who are crushed because an indictment was Bernie's last great hope for the nomination. However, Bernie himself said it correctly - there are far more important issues facing the American electorate.
2
People in prison for tax evasion "bent" the tax rules.
Murderers bent the "life" rules.
Child predators bent the "rules" of nature.
So hey, it's Obama liberal world...there are no crimes...just rule bending here and there.
Murderers bent the "life" rules.
Child predators bent the "rules" of nature.
So hey, it's Obama liberal world...there are no crimes...just rule bending here and there.
3
the following statement in the editorial appears to be inaccurate: "Mr. Comey’s remarks also contradicted Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertion that she didn’t send or receive material that was “marked classified” at the time. She did."
What Mr. Comey said was that emails were sent that contained information that was classified top secret at the time. Mr. Comey did not say that the emails or information were marked classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received or sent them. Thus, he did not say that Mrs. Clinton knew she was transmitting top secret information. He did say that she should have known the information in the communications was classified. But the distinction is important, and the editorial incorrect, when the editors write that the emails were "marked classified." Perhaps they were, but Mr. Comey did not say make that statement. The status of information in the emails, and the legending of the emails, are two different things, and should not be conflated until proven.
She followed precedent by Rice and Powell, who also had their own servers. In any event, given the sheer volume of information a cabinet member must process and communicate, it is unremarkable that a few mistakes happen. None of us is perfect, and it is a tiresome distraction from the hard work and zealous devotion to duty that Mrs. Clinton displayed while Secretary. Discussing drone strikes in Pakistan is not discussing an actual secret, whatever the classification applied.
What Mr. Comey said was that emails were sent that contained information that was classified top secret at the time. Mr. Comey did not say that the emails or information were marked classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received or sent them. Thus, he did not say that Mrs. Clinton knew she was transmitting top secret information. He did say that she should have known the information in the communications was classified. But the distinction is important, and the editorial incorrect, when the editors write that the emails were "marked classified." Perhaps they were, but Mr. Comey did not say make that statement. The status of information in the emails, and the legending of the emails, are two different things, and should not be conflated until proven.
She followed precedent by Rice and Powell, who also had their own servers. In any event, given the sheer volume of information a cabinet member must process and communicate, it is unremarkable that a few mistakes happen. None of us is perfect, and it is a tiresome distraction from the hard work and zealous devotion to duty that Mrs. Clinton displayed while Secretary. Discussing drone strikes in Pakistan is not discussing an actual secret, whatever the classification applied.
2
Dear Mr. Brown,
Neither Secretary Rice nor Secretary Powell had private email servers. They had private email accounts; you know, like your private email account might read "[email protected]".
The above in quotes is an email account.
Ms. Clinton had a separate server in this case that means a separate computer or other hardware device where, according to the IG and FBI report, she established her own home grown email system, with a private email account, on her private computer, in her home, where all (I refuse to use caps) but I repeat, where she kept all her emails both government and private and worse some top secret.
The reason this is more problematic is that at least if you have a private email account with gmail, att, etc. they have filters and attempt to prevent your emails from being accessed without your permission.
The government servers she should have used had security built into them as well. This set up was not in compliance with the State Department rules, not good, but she was also in violation of the rules regarding the handling of the confidential and top secret emails, which is what Mr. Comey described as "extremely careless".
Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell did no such thing.
I probably am wasting my time but it is tiresome to hear people mischaracterize the facts about email accounts and email servers.
Neither Secretary Rice nor Secretary Powell had private email servers. They had private email accounts; you know, like your private email account might read "[email protected]".
The above in quotes is an email account.
Ms. Clinton had a separate server in this case that means a separate computer or other hardware device where, according to the IG and FBI report, she established her own home grown email system, with a private email account, on her private computer, in her home, where all (I refuse to use caps) but I repeat, where she kept all her emails both government and private and worse some top secret.
The reason this is more problematic is that at least if you have a private email account with gmail, att, etc. they have filters and attempt to prevent your emails from being accessed without your permission.
The government servers she should have used had security built into them as well. This set up was not in compliance with the State Department rules, not good, but she was also in violation of the rules regarding the handling of the confidential and top secret emails, which is what Mr. Comey described as "extremely careless".
Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell did no such thing.
I probably am wasting my time but it is tiresome to hear people mischaracterize the facts about email accounts and email servers.
1
I do not understand why the Times, throughout this long process, has not seen fit to run a series of articles on the real issue here, which is that Clinton's actions were consistent with the lax security culture at most government agencies. Comey can come out and bluff and bluster all he wants about carelessness, but the fact is, this kind of carelessness is unbelievably routine. Treasury, the State Department, OPM, the FDA, DOJ.... Pick the agency, talk to the people there. Ask them about the security protocols and whether anyone follows them. Then take a look at all the private contractors to whom the government outsources critical parts of its cyber security infrastructure and maintenance.
For years, Clinton sent emails to people from her private server and nobody batted an eye. The FBI apparently didn't know or care, and neither did the NSA. If they didn't know, that's an insane oversight. But the truth is that they probably knew and just couldn't care, because the problems with cyber security in the federal government are so massive that nobody even knows where to start fixing them. Most of our governmental functions -- even the classified ones -- are an open book to any country with somewhat sophisticated offensive cyber capability.
Report on that, please.
For years, Clinton sent emails to people from her private server and nobody batted an eye. The FBI apparently didn't know or care, and neither did the NSA. If they didn't know, that's an insane oversight. But the truth is that they probably knew and just couldn't care, because the problems with cyber security in the federal government are so massive that nobody even knows where to start fixing them. Most of our governmental functions -- even the classified ones -- are an open book to any country with somewhat sophisticated offensive cyber capability.
Report on that, please.
5
I cannot believe this newspaper supports and would like me to vote for a candidate that claims to not know what it means to wipe a server clean.
6
This is whole inquiry is a bunch of political theater. Mrs. Clinton has done nothing wrong and absolutely nothing of any reasonably labeled top security was even on the server. If most of the folks in Congress now and in past administrations were investigated in this kind of detail they would would most likely be reprimanded in the same manner. This is nothing but theater and a disgrace to our sense of decency. We skewer good people for no other reason than they are in another party. Oh and the FBI guy was a Republican.
3
From the Dept. of State website, factors looked at when granting security clearance:
"Guideline K: Handling Protected Information
34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location;
(c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment;
Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems
39. The Concern. Noncompliance with rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. Information Technology Systems include all related computer hardware, software, firmware, and data used for the communication, transmission, processing, manipulation, storage, or protection of information."
There is more but these are most on point. If Hillary were not a "made" higher-up political person, she probably would have her security clearance lifted. Why isn't this happening now? Maybe The Donald should be looked at as a security risk also.
"Guideline K: Handling Protected Information
34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location;
(c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment;
Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems
39. The Concern. Noncompliance with rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations pertaining to information technology systems may raise security concerns about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, calling into question the willingness or ability to properly protect sensitive systems, networks, and information. Information Technology Systems include all related computer hardware, software, firmware, and data used for the communication, transmission, processing, manipulation, storage, or protection of information."
There is more but these are most on point. If Hillary were not a "made" higher-up political person, she probably would have her security clearance lifted. Why isn't this happening now? Maybe The Donald should be looked at as a security risk also.
1
I am a true blue liberal and have nothing but admiration for Comey, this staunch and true public servant who happens to be a Republican. It was not long ago when I watched with interest how he prevented the very sick Ashcroft from being coerced into reversing a decision on an illegal Bush intelligence program. Comey renews my faith in the rule of law. May his tribe increase.
Those who are ready to indict HC for her email server have no memory at all since both Condi Rice and Colin Powell also had unorthodox email setups. Apparently even columnists and editorial writers prefer to not look into history on this one. And the entire nation also forgets that it was government accounts/servers that were hacked and vast amounts of personal data on government workers was lifted, taken, stolen. Who has been prosecuted for that really bad outcome? And don't hold your breath for action on that crime of omission.
I believe that a much bigger wrong in this episode, and one that I fear is not over yet, is Republican politicians abusing their positions of authority to carry out never-ending harassment of a political rival. The unfairness and dishonesty -- and pure cynicism -- of what they've done far eclipses what appears to have been a mostly unwitting technical oversight about operating secure email servers, with no criminal intent or demonstrable harm. GOP congressman and former candidate for the House speakership Kevin McCarthy spilled the beans on his party's unethical strategy months ago.
I have long been confused by the whole issue of "Hillary Clinton's email server." The Secretary of State of the United States of America does not operate in a vacuum. It is not as if she was conducting business on a .gov server and then one day secretly moved over to her own server and hid that from one and all. From day one she was allowed by the US government to operate on a private server. She was sending and receiving emails from all branches of government, including, most likely, the FBI. This was done in full view of the US government, and yet, it is Hillary's issue? I remain confused.
4
There's still a way for the Democratic party to rescue the country from the nightmare of a Donald Trump presidency:
Superdelegates should vote for Bernie Sanders at the convention. The superdelegates are not legally, contractually, or otherwise obliged to cast their votes as they have said they would. They are free to do what is right.
At the end of the day, Clinton will get votes from all the voters who always vote and whose vote always goes to the Democrat. As Kerry and Gore and Dukakis have proven, that's not enough to win. A winning Democratic candidate needs to inspire progressive people who unreliably vote to go to the polls. Obama inspired millions of blacks and millions of young people who unreliably vote to actually register and to actually vote. Comey's remarks throw ice - not just cold water - on the unreliable voters. There's every reason to expect these unreliable voters to sit out the election if Clinton is the candidate.
Look, I love HRC, I appreciate her service. But she's the least likely Democratic candidate to actually win in November. Trump may be a bad candidate himself, but loyalty to HRC must take a back seat to being sure the Democrat wins in November.
Democratic superdelegates, the nation's future is in your hands...
Superdelegates should vote for Bernie Sanders at the convention. The superdelegates are not legally, contractually, or otherwise obliged to cast their votes as they have said they would. They are free to do what is right.
At the end of the day, Clinton will get votes from all the voters who always vote and whose vote always goes to the Democrat. As Kerry and Gore and Dukakis have proven, that's not enough to win. A winning Democratic candidate needs to inspire progressive people who unreliably vote to go to the polls. Obama inspired millions of blacks and millions of young people who unreliably vote to actually register and to actually vote. Comey's remarks throw ice - not just cold water - on the unreliable voters. There's every reason to expect these unreliable voters to sit out the election if Clinton is the candidate.
Look, I love HRC, I appreciate her service. But she's the least likely Democratic candidate to actually win in November. Trump may be a bad candidate himself, but loyalty to HRC must take a back seat to being sure the Democrat wins in November.
Democratic superdelegates, the nation's future is in your hands...
1
Realistically, let me tell you what happened.
Ever try to teach your mother how to do email? Same thing with Hillary. She was computer illiterate at the time and once she figured out how to do email one way she saw no good reason to learn how to do the same exact thing some other way. That's what they should have gone with.
In her further defense, let us also recall that some of what is now being deemed classified was designated "classified" after-the-fact.
That said, instead Hillary and Bill are so sneaky and slippery that they concocted this meeting on the tarmac in Arizona just before the July 4th weekend between Lynch, who should resign, and Bill so they could "discuss grandchildren". Then after the weekend Lynch's appointee Comey expresses the opinion that Hillary should not be prosecuted.
Ever try to teach your mother how to do email? Same thing with Hillary. She was computer illiterate at the time and once she figured out how to do email one way she saw no good reason to learn how to do the same exact thing some other way. That's what they should have gone with.
In her further defense, let us also recall that some of what is now being deemed classified was designated "classified" after-the-fact.
That said, instead Hillary and Bill are so sneaky and slippery that they concocted this meeting on the tarmac in Arizona just before the July 4th weekend between Lynch, who should resign, and Bill so they could "discuss grandchildren". Then after the weekend Lynch's appointee Comey expresses the opinion that Hillary should not be prosecuted.
This is one of the most patronizing explanations I have come across thus far...Really.
1
What is very clear, politically, is that the republic can not afford a Trump presidency. The consequences beggar the imagination. Please imagine him ascending the podium for a State of the Union address. Clinton made an error in judgement (one made by her predecessors) and will never do it again, I promise.
1
A clever job of work by Director Comey! His decision to supersede the DOJ was highly inappropriate (and one might contend, a violation of the rules). His assertions were not only blatantly subjective, but well outside the purview of the FBI. He handily managed to try & convict Secretary Clinton in the public forum w/o the petty encumbance of an indictment based on actual, actionable evidence--leaving the 'accused' not accused & ergo, w/o recourse.
And he achieved all this w/o casting the faintest shadow on his sainthood. Most in the media are content to attach the noblest of motives to his actions. Naturally, the Republicans will indulge in a brief orgy of faux outrage (which may vaguely allude to Mr. Comey's failure to recommend an indictment) but that will quickly pass since they know perfectly well he has handed their campaigns a veritable treasure trove of negative political fodder--which was, in all probability, his intention.
He donated to both the McCain & the Romney campaigns. Wonder if he'll contribute to Trump's. No real need: he's done enough already...
And he achieved all this w/o casting the faintest shadow on his sainthood. Most in the media are content to attach the noblest of motives to his actions. Naturally, the Republicans will indulge in a brief orgy of faux outrage (which may vaguely allude to Mr. Comey's failure to recommend an indictment) but that will quickly pass since they know perfectly well he has handed their campaigns a veritable treasure trove of negative political fodder--which was, in all probability, his intention.
He donated to both the McCain & the Romney campaigns. Wonder if he'll contribute to Trump's. No real need: he's done enough already...
1
I understand why using email in unfriendly territory might be insecure, because you're dependent on the local network to get to your email server, and the network might be compromised. The real question is whether the data that is sent to and from the server is encrypted, so even if someone intercepts it they can't read what was sent (unless they're the NSA).
It would be reasonable to assume that the State Department unclassified email server uses encrypted connections (though that information itself might be classified, or soon will be if it's not the case). It would also have been reasonable for Hillary, who is obviously not technology savvy, to assume that whoever was running her server had taken care of it.
Does the FBI's statement mean that the connection wasn't secure and if so, whose fault was that? If it was secure, it doesn't seem there would be any difference between using that server and using the official unclassified server (the overall security of the server itself is a different issue).
It would be reasonable to assume that the State Department unclassified email server uses encrypted connections (though that information itself might be classified, or soon will be if it's not the case). It would also have been reasonable for Hillary, who is obviously not technology savvy, to assume that whoever was running her server had taken care of it.
Does the FBI's statement mean that the connection wasn't secure and if so, whose fault was that? If it was secure, it doesn't seem there would be any difference between using that server and using the official unclassified server (the overall security of the server itself is a different issue).
1
If Secretary Clinton had used the State Department server, she would likely have used the non-secure "partition." We know for sure that it was hacked. So, exactly the same result would have ensued. Were those 10 "top secret" emails actually marked "top secret" or not? If not, I guess Secretary Clinton was supposed to divine what was secret or top secret. The whole email system at the State Department has been problematic for a long time. Perhaps, Clinton should have taken the initiative to try to fix this flawed system. But, frankly, she had bigger fish to fry. She had to clean up the gigantic mess left by her predecessor.
2
With all of her experience: First lady, senator, then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton should have known better. It's not rocket science - it's common knowledge any private email system if vulnerable to hacking, ask any high schooler. Yes, we know Hillary's MO (like Bill Clinton) is to apologize after the fact of wrong doing and all should be forgiven and forgotten. Some of us didn't trust her before this and now trust her even less.
There is no good choice for president; we either vote for Trump, a seemingly deranged bigot who alienates his own party members and god forbid what he would do or say about world leaders, his bizarre behaviour could very well isolate the US, or we vote for another...groan...eight years of a Clinton presidency. First one sullied the office of the presidency and was 'pardoned' and now would sit as First Gentleman, and Hillary who stood by 'her man' to get where she is today, as 'presumptive nominee' to the most important position in our country and world leader, with her own sullied reputation as not one to be trusted, and equally as arrogant as her husband who really is a liability to her as evidenced by his "chance meeting' with Lynch. Neither Trump or Hillary are good choices.
Perhaps the best choice for many of us is to stay home away from the voting booth in November and let the cards fall where they may, to avoid being complicit in what the next four years brings to our nation.
There is no good choice for president; we either vote for Trump, a seemingly deranged bigot who alienates his own party members and god forbid what he would do or say about world leaders, his bizarre behaviour could very well isolate the US, or we vote for another...groan...eight years of a Clinton presidency. First one sullied the office of the presidency and was 'pardoned' and now would sit as First Gentleman, and Hillary who stood by 'her man' to get where she is today, as 'presumptive nominee' to the most important position in our country and world leader, with her own sullied reputation as not one to be trusted, and equally as arrogant as her husband who really is a liability to her as evidenced by his "chance meeting' with Lynch. Neither Trump or Hillary are good choices.
Perhaps the best choice for many of us is to stay home away from the voting booth in November and let the cards fall where they may, to avoid being complicit in what the next four years brings to our nation.
Comey knew he couldn't get an indictment so he made baseless accusations instead. Highly inappropriate and partisan from the man who helped lead the Whitewater charge. The media has a role in fueling this endless loop of investigation into non-stories. The rules on classification are murky and honestly, information that is completely innocuous is classified. So totally understandable that this could happen. There isn't some nefarious plot being uncovered. It is again the endless industry of investigating the Clintons for political reasons and finding nothing. And the media is complicit in this because it sells papers. The times really needs to consider its ethics here.
6
Don't get your hopes up:
"Warren 2020!"
Warren either will run this time or she'll never run. If she runs in 2020, and wins, she'll be the oldest person every to be elected (Reagan holds that record, with Hillary a close second and Trump older than either of them if he wins). if she runs in 2024, she'll be 75 years old.
This is hardly prescient, but I suspect many Republicans are mentally throwing in the towel in this election, preparing for 2020. On the Democratic side, though, I can't imagine Elizabeth Warren unseating President Hillary Clinton, or even trying to. Either she runs this time -- as Hillary's VP, obviously -- or she never runs.
"Warren 2020!"
Warren either will run this time or she'll never run. If she runs in 2020, and wins, she'll be the oldest person every to be elected (Reagan holds that record, with Hillary a close second and Trump older than either of them if he wins). if she runs in 2024, she'll be 75 years old.
This is hardly prescient, but I suspect many Republicans are mentally throwing in the towel in this election, preparing for 2020. On the Democratic side, though, I can't imagine Elizabeth Warren unseating President Hillary Clinton, or even trying to. Either she runs this time -- as Hillary's VP, obviously -- or she never runs.
If I were in Hillary Clinton's position, I would prefer the security of a private email system.
The State Department has a history of classifying documents culled from newspapers and other public sources, and they have a bizarre practice of reclassifying documents that have been previously released. We don't need to take the term "classified" too seriously.
Besides,!US Government Agencies handle many of their documents carelessly, as we know from the diplomatic cables published on WikiLeaks. They employ people like Ed Snowden and thousands like him. They are full of political appointees whose loyalty and competence are difficult to assess. And they leak. All the time.
As I write this, the US is faced with a candidate for President who praises Vladimir Putin more highly than his own Commander-in-Chief. He has the support of his party, and by implication that of its adherents in the public service, possibly even some involved in the protection of Government communications. Their animus towards Ms. Clinton has been carefully stoked and (how could it be otherwise?) just as carefully concealed under a mask of loyal service. So it might not be too wise to let sensitive information pass too easily through their hands. I cannot honestly fault Ms. Clinton for her actions, even if hindsight suggests that other actions might have been better.
The State Department has a history of classifying documents culled from newspapers and other public sources, and they have a bizarre practice of reclassifying documents that have been previously released. We don't need to take the term "classified" too seriously.
Besides,!US Government Agencies handle many of their documents carelessly, as we know from the diplomatic cables published on WikiLeaks. They employ people like Ed Snowden and thousands like him. They are full of political appointees whose loyalty and competence are difficult to assess. And they leak. All the time.
As I write this, the US is faced with a candidate for President who praises Vladimir Putin more highly than his own Commander-in-Chief. He has the support of his party, and by implication that of its adherents in the public service, possibly even some involved in the protection of Government communications. Their animus towards Ms. Clinton has been carefully stoked and (how could it be otherwise?) just as carefully concealed under a mask of loyal service. So it might not be too wise to let sensitive information pass too easily through their hands. I cannot honestly fault Ms. Clinton for her actions, even if hindsight suggests that other actions might have been better.
2
The Attorney General said she would follow the recommendation of the FBI Director in this matter. But given that Comey has sad that while no criminal prosecution is warranted, some administrative or security action might be, the AG should revoke Hillary's security clearance, effectively ending her candidacy. Lesser officials would have their clearances pulled for doing a lot less than Hillary has done. She should not be allowed near anymore secure data. Pull her clearance, Ms. Lynch!
1
Hillary lies with such ease that it seems like second nature to her.
Based on what Comey said about Hillary, I am more convinced than ever that Hillary is unfit for any position of responsibility.
Yes, I was a Bernie supporter, but that has nothing to do with my visceral revulsion for Hillary.
Hillary determined that her convenience carried more weight than the safety of government employees. Potentially, if hostile actors knew the time and location of meetings, they could have harmed people we had a responsibility to keep safe.
The level of irresponsibility involved is simply breathtaking, and I can only think that a lot of Americans haven't stopped to think about all the implications of her actions.
Comey stated her home brew was less secure than Gmail! How pathetic is that? Gmail has changed my password repeatedly due to hacking.
This should not be a partisan issue.
A vote for Hillary means the voter does not believe that our leaders should be constrained by the rule of law.
I sure hope people understand what they are tacitly supporting if they cast a ballot for her.
This country is based on the rule of law, and the quaint notion that no one is above that law.
Based on what Comey said about Hillary, I am more convinced than ever that Hillary is unfit for any position of responsibility.
Yes, I was a Bernie supporter, but that has nothing to do with my visceral revulsion for Hillary.
Hillary determined that her convenience carried more weight than the safety of government employees. Potentially, if hostile actors knew the time and location of meetings, they could have harmed people we had a responsibility to keep safe.
The level of irresponsibility involved is simply breathtaking, and I can only think that a lot of Americans haven't stopped to think about all the implications of her actions.
Comey stated her home brew was less secure than Gmail! How pathetic is that? Gmail has changed my password repeatedly due to hacking.
This should not be a partisan issue.
A vote for Hillary means the voter does not believe that our leaders should be constrained by the rule of law.
I sure hope people understand what they are tacitly supporting if they cast a ballot for her.
This country is based on the rule of law, and the quaint notion that no one is above that law.
"This legal decision is undoubtedly correct." Huh? There does not appear to be an intent requirement in the statute. Until this email debacle I was an unqualified Hillary supporter; I remain a supporter of Trump's opponent. But I find it extremely frustrating that the Times' editorial board has failed to scrutinize the FBI's reasoning. It's hard not to be cynical. I hold the Times to a higher standard.
1
The FBI has confirmed all of the charges made against Hillary and her use of the private email server.
They plainly illustrated her numerous and egregious lies about the email situation.
What's more, they clearly indicated that anyone else would be facing charges.
Hillary is the new O.J. Simpson and will spend the rest of her life looking for the people who REALLY put those classified emails on her server.
They plainly illustrated her numerous and egregious lies about the email situation.
What's more, they clearly indicated that anyone else would be facing charges.
Hillary is the new O.J. Simpson and will spend the rest of her life looking for the people who REALLY put those classified emails on her server.
Here's what the headline in this paper should have been:
Clinton Offers New Contract To Attorney General - Escapes Indictment
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/clinton-offers-new-contract-to-atto...
But it's nice that the Times doesn't think Bill meeting with the woman who headed the investigation into his wife, who also plans to renominate the woman, for at a minimum reckless handling of classified materials and then *lying* about it - is all cleared up now....
Good grief, guys - I understand backing a horse, but how about some journalism now and then?
Clinton Offers New Contract To Attorney General - Escapes Indictment
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/07/clinton-offers-new-contract-to-atto...
But it's nice that the Times doesn't think Bill meeting with the woman who headed the investigation into his wife, who also plans to renominate the woman, for at a minimum reckless handling of classified materials and then *lying* about it - is all cleared up now....
Good grief, guys - I understand backing a horse, but how about some journalism now and then?
3
I agree, but...
"Republicans [should] put up a qualified person as a candidate."
But so should the Democrats. The "Republicans" didn't tell Hillary Clinton she should refuse to get a State Department email address and instead should send and receive all official emails from a private server in her basement. The "Republicans" didn't tell Bill Clinton he ought to pay a social visit on the Attorney General of the United States.
"Republicans [should] put up a qualified person as a candidate."
But so should the Democrats. The "Republicans" didn't tell Hillary Clinton she should refuse to get a State Department email address and instead should send and receive all official emails from a private server in her basement. The "Republicans" didn't tell Bill Clinton he ought to pay a social visit on the Attorney General of the United States.
1
"Mrs. Clinton’s desire to shield her private communications from public scrutiny may be understandable to supporters of her presidential campaign"
no, it's not, since they were all private but 110 mails in 52 chains, as reported by f.b.i.'s Comey, who has referred to them as confidential, classified and Top Secret AT THE TIME they were sent or received ( so excluding that ugly job of post-classification ).
It's up to supporters of mrs. Clinton to sustain and justify her doing, not to the NYT, even if it endorsed her in democratic primary, and even if mr. Obama has recently endorsed her in N.C.
The rule of law is there to be followed not to be excused acccording to political convenience. What do the other people handling sensible information shuld in fact extract from this long debated issue if not that being negligent is excused, as long as your role overrule that law?
And about that, i like to point out that until mr. Obama became president by defeating her in the democratic primary in 2008 ( and subsequently mr. McCain in general one ) she was first lady ( as i checked today not a political role ) and senator for new york, that is just like the resume of mr. Sanders minus his years of experience and proven standing in the Congress on the side of progressive values. And if she was such an asset as Secretary of State to mr. Obama, why did he change her for the proactive mr. Kerry?
no, it's not, since they were all private but 110 mails in 52 chains, as reported by f.b.i.'s Comey, who has referred to them as confidential, classified and Top Secret AT THE TIME they were sent or received ( so excluding that ugly job of post-classification ).
It's up to supporters of mrs. Clinton to sustain and justify her doing, not to the NYT, even if it endorsed her in democratic primary, and even if mr. Obama has recently endorsed her in N.C.
The rule of law is there to be followed not to be excused acccording to political convenience. What do the other people handling sensible information shuld in fact extract from this long debated issue if not that being negligent is excused, as long as your role overrule that law?
And about that, i like to point out that until mr. Obama became president by defeating her in the democratic primary in 2008 ( and subsequently mr. McCain in general one ) she was first lady ( as i checked today not a political role ) and senator for new york, that is just like the resume of mr. Sanders minus his years of experience and proven standing in the Congress on the side of progressive values. And if she was such an asset as Secretary of State to mr. Obama, why did he change her for the proactive mr. Kerry?
1
Obama has dropped double digits in my ratings since taking up with Clinton!
Was it right? Let's ask Wen Ho Lee and all the other Asian American scientists who have been prosecuted for and accused and ultimately exonerated for much less severe "breaches." This clearly shows at the very least bias in the system and political payola at its worst. A rebuke? Give me a break.
"...it is in the end a problem entirely of her own making. ... and yes, of course I will vote for her. There is no alternative."
But there IS an alternative! Not Trump, but my pet dog is running -- vote for her! OK, I don't actually have a dog -- but I do have a toaster. Vote for my toaster!
But there IS an alternative! Not Trump, but my pet dog is running -- vote for her! OK, I don't actually have a dog -- but I do have a toaster. Vote for my toaster!
1
Gotta confess that my University has a rule that all work-related emails be sent through their server. But their server is terrible--gmail is so much more intuitive--and so I just don't do it.
Of course I'm never emailing about anything dangerous so I'm not saying she didn't do something really wrong... Just that I'm glad her job ain't mine. Because if I did have her job, I probably would've done the same thing at least once...
Of course I'm never emailing about anything dangerous so I'm not saying she didn't do something really wrong... Just that I'm glad her job ain't mine. Because if I did have her job, I probably would've done the same thing at least once...
There was no way Clinton was going to walk away from this unscathed, or without the shouts of "unfair" or "rigged".
The baying for her bloodspilling are far too numerous, and from both sides of the corridor to simply be ignored.
While Clinton was undoubtedly careless in her decision to use unclassified mail systems and lacking in good judgement about its repurcussions, it can hardly be deemed as willful neglect, with the intent of bringing down this country -- something that would be sure to happen with Donald Trimp at the helm.
And for those who think that he, who is now cheering loudest at the FBI's decision, is totally free of error -- should first ask him to produce the income tax documents he has so far, failed to make public.
The knife cuts both ways.
The baying for her bloodspilling are far too numerous, and from both sides of the corridor to simply be ignored.
While Clinton was undoubtedly careless in her decision to use unclassified mail systems and lacking in good judgement about its repurcussions, it can hardly be deemed as willful neglect, with the intent of bringing down this country -- something that would be sure to happen with Donald Trimp at the helm.
And for those who think that he, who is now cheering loudest at the FBI's decision, is totally free of error -- should first ask him to produce the income tax documents he has so far, failed to make public.
The knife cuts both ways.
2
"If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment." Fat chance.
2
All of this is nothing but a Red Herring.
The real issue is the whole world of classification. The Federal Government classifies the color of the White House dogs poop. Too much. Way too much.
If anything is to be classified it must be TYPED ON A TYPEWRITER on paper stored in a secured vault and delivered by hand via a person. No photo copies and no electronic versions.
This would solve the issue of too much stuff being classified and it would solve people emailing things they should not and it would solve most of the Snowden and Wiki leaks.
The Federal Government has created a system that by design is going to fail. Clinton is but one symptom of that sick system. Stop wasting time talking about the symptom and fix the classification system.
The real issue is the whole world of classification. The Federal Government classifies the color of the White House dogs poop. Too much. Way too much.
If anything is to be classified it must be TYPED ON A TYPEWRITER on paper stored in a secured vault and delivered by hand via a person. No photo copies and no electronic versions.
This would solve the issue of too much stuff being classified and it would solve people emailing things they should not and it would solve most of the Snowden and Wiki leaks.
The Federal Government has created a system that by design is going to fail. Clinton is but one symptom of that sick system. Stop wasting time talking about the symptom and fix the classification system.
1
Can we just cool it with the "Well, nothing was MARKED classified at the time" excuses? If our Secretary of State gets a phone call at 3 AM that some world crisis is unfolding, she must start communicating at once, not wait for some State Department techno-nerd to review what she sends and receives and mark "Classified" on appropriate emails. But a Secretary of State is expected to exercise some judgment, not just rely on markings. What Justice Potter Stewart once said about pornography could also be said about most "top secret" emails:
"I know it when I see it."
"I know it when I see it."
First year of law school: Criminal Law 101. For a crime to occur you need "mens rea" (criminal intent) and "actus reus" (criminal act). No way anyone could have rightly concluded that Clinton was guilty of a crime. HRC made the reasonable assumption that her private server would be secure (and let's just say that her server was at least as secure as the ".gov" server), and was never disabused of this understanding by anyone. There was no law requiring Clinton to use the ".gov" server, and her use of a private server was hardly a secret. No one raised any objections until the Republicans decided they might be able to make a political issue out of it.
What is infuriating is the rebuke Clinton received from Comey. There was absolutely no basis for it. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used private email servers. Of course, there never a peep out of the FBI, DOJ, or anyone else about that.
It is so incredibly frustrating that George W. Bush literally got away with murder in prosecuting the Iraq war on false pretenses (and so incredibly frustrating that the NYT failed to get to the bottom of the fake weapons of mass destruction claim), which cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars and left the Middle East in tatters, while Clinton is being crucified for using a private email server. How about some perspective?
I am ashamed of the NYT Editorial Board for this opinion. Bernie at least got this one right. Enough already with the emails!
What is infuriating is the rebuke Clinton received from Comey. There was absolutely no basis for it. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used private email servers. Of course, there never a peep out of the FBI, DOJ, or anyone else about that.
It is so incredibly frustrating that George W. Bush literally got away with murder in prosecuting the Iraq war on false pretenses (and so incredibly frustrating that the NYT failed to get to the bottom of the fake weapons of mass destruction claim), which cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars and left the Middle East in tatters, while Clinton is being crucified for using a private email server. How about some perspective?
I am ashamed of the NYT Editorial Board for this opinion. Bernie at least got this one right. Enough already with the emails!
2
Ah yes. Clinton is ahead in the pols. Makes for a boring election.
Tightening the horse race now is in the media's best interest, so let's beat this dead horse.
The real question here is what did she learn from her admitted mistake? How will that shape her presidency? As important, it's what have the American people learned? a quarter century of letting Republicans hound her led to this problem; how will that impact her ability to fulfill her responsibilities as president?
Maybe some of the ire at Clinton should be focused back to the people who have investigated, smeared, slimed, and refused to cooperate with Clinton despite her obvious attempts to do the work of being a public servant for her entire adult life. And while we're at it, perhaps we could note that despite that treatment, Clinton has still been willing to reach out and work and form friendships with those people. Ask Lindsey Graham; who was one of the leaders in the charge to undermine President Bill Clinton, and who still found someone willing to work together and form friendship once Clinton was elected to the senate.
It's fine to criticize Clinton, so long as it's constructive criticism. But it is not okay to do it simply to rebalance the horse race to attract clicks. And it's not okay to ignore the quarter-century of the GOPs treatment of Clinton as if they bear no responsibility for what they've done.
Tightening the horse race now is in the media's best interest, so let's beat this dead horse.
The real question here is what did she learn from her admitted mistake? How will that shape her presidency? As important, it's what have the American people learned? a quarter century of letting Republicans hound her led to this problem; how will that impact her ability to fulfill her responsibilities as president?
Maybe some of the ire at Clinton should be focused back to the people who have investigated, smeared, slimed, and refused to cooperate with Clinton despite her obvious attempts to do the work of being a public servant for her entire adult life. And while we're at it, perhaps we could note that despite that treatment, Clinton has still been willing to reach out and work and form friendships with those people. Ask Lindsey Graham; who was one of the leaders in the charge to undermine President Bill Clinton, and who still found someone willing to work together and form friendship once Clinton was elected to the senate.
It's fine to criticize Clinton, so long as it's constructive criticism. But it is not okay to do it simply to rebalance the horse race to attract clicks. And it's not okay to ignore the quarter-century of the GOPs treatment of Clinton as if they bear no responsibility for what they've done.
1
Comey basically said Clinton and her staff were incompetent. The Republicans are going to pounce on this until eternity. I think it is time for the Democrats to seriously reconsider their presumptive nominee and for the super delegates support Sanders.
Regardless of party affiliation, this was clearly a violation of the law in every way as described by Mr.Comey. The fact is that Mrs.Clinton and her staff were briefed prior to beginning work at the State Dept. on how to handle their records and e-mails and thumbed their noses at everyone. This is the saddest election of my life not just because of the GOP nominee, but because of the people on the left cheering Hillary for not being charged and not owning the fact that what she did was despicable and unacceptable.
No one wins when someone is viewed as above the law.
No one wins when someone is viewed as above the law.
1
My guess is that Comey was told to find a way to not bring formal charges, but nobody counted on him showing, step by step, how guilty she truly is.
3
I just do not care about the emails.
I care about the country. If Trump is elected, his platform and plans will damage the world economy and further threaten our security. He will appoint conservative justices that will affect not only social issues but also roll back any progress made on climate change.
I have made up my mind. I am voting for Hillary. Trump is not an option. It is simple as that.
I care about the country. If Trump is elected, his platform and plans will damage the world economy and further threaten our security. He will appoint conservative justices that will affect not only social issues but also roll back any progress made on climate change.
I have made up my mind. I am voting for Hillary. Trump is not an option. It is simple as that.
17
You are absolutely right, Cyn. The sexist double standard applied to Hillary Clinton by this editorial will live in infamy for many, many years. And the gratuitous, knife-twisting performance by the uber-ambitious James Comey -- regardless of how the election ends -- will be remembered with disgust.
I have been a loyal supporter of Barack Obama since early 2008, but I came to think that President Obama's appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General turned out to be disastrous. I now believe the Obama appointment of Comey to head the F.B.I. is even worse.
I have been a loyal supporter of Barack Obama since early 2008, but I came to think that President Obama's appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General turned out to be disastrous. I now believe the Obama appointment of Comey to head the F.B.I. is even worse.
1
It's the end of the world! People, don't vote for Ms. Clinton if this is your issue.
It isn't mine. As president she will pick a superb Supreme Court, keep us out of gratuitous wars, and help the middle class.
But look at the bright side. You can rail and rant about her for 4 years, like you have been doing for the past 8 years against Obama. Have fun!
It isn't mine. As president she will pick a superb Supreme Court, keep us out of gratuitous wars, and help the middle class.
But look at the bright side. You can rail and rant about her for 4 years, like you have been doing for the past 8 years against Obama. Have fun!
2
Hillary has stated that she needs to work on regaining the trust of the American people. Paradoxically, the only way she can do that is to withdraw from the race for president.
2
The FBI's finding of "no intent" doesn't make sense. Mrs. Clinton used private servers for email because she intended to break laws regulating the handling of classified information. The "intent" is "prima facie."
The "political clarity" is that the U.S. government operates like a criminal organization, and the Clinton family is at the heart of it. Mrs. Clinton and her husband are likely guilty of a number of serious crimes (the least of which is the improper handling of classified email), but if they go down, they'll take half the federal government with them, including the presidency.
That probably needs to happen: a wholesale "cleaning" of the federal-government "house" (and senate, and executive, and courts). However, it would create a "constitutional crisis" the likes of which this country--likely the entire world--has never seen: a dramatic portrait of big-government corruption.
I think that, on some level, every right-thinking American knows it's true: the U.S. government is wracked by corruption, and it's not limited to either major political party. Its moral and ethical failures have spread throughout the country and demoralized all of us.
Comey's not ready to drop the atomic bomb, "and," as Kurt Vonnegut famously observed, "so it goes." If Mrs. Clinton wins--and it's likely the Clintons have the electoral vote securely in their pockets--we'll get more of the same thing we've been getting for decades.
It'll be at the hands of a woman this time: gee whiz.
The "political clarity" is that the U.S. government operates like a criminal organization, and the Clinton family is at the heart of it. Mrs. Clinton and her husband are likely guilty of a number of serious crimes (the least of which is the improper handling of classified email), but if they go down, they'll take half the federal government with them, including the presidency.
That probably needs to happen: a wholesale "cleaning" of the federal-government "house" (and senate, and executive, and courts). However, it would create a "constitutional crisis" the likes of which this country--likely the entire world--has never seen: a dramatic portrait of big-government corruption.
I think that, on some level, every right-thinking American knows it's true: the U.S. government is wracked by corruption, and it's not limited to either major political party. Its moral and ethical failures have spread throughout the country and demoralized all of us.
Comey's not ready to drop the atomic bomb, "and," as Kurt Vonnegut famously observed, "so it goes." If Mrs. Clinton wins--and it's likely the Clintons have the electoral vote securely in their pockets--we'll get more of the same thing we've been getting for decades.
It'll be at the hands of a woman this time: gee whiz.
1
Journalistic malpractice by The Times for having not recognized, years ago, that Ms. Clinton was using a personal e-mail server. An investigation is in order to determine who knew this, and at what point they should have known it.
3
I'm a Democrat. But it's amazing to me how Clinton's most zealous supporters seem to think the phrases "Trump is worse," or "the Bush administration was worse" should shut down every conversation about the Secretary's very real, troubling flaws as a potential leader of the country.
Of course Trump/Bush are/were worse. One was one of the worst Presidents ever, and one surely would be. We should be holding our candidate to a much, much higher standard. The thought process should be "gee, if these are the guys we have to compare our candidate to, we might really be in trouble."
Of course Trump/Bush are/were worse. One was one of the worst Presidents ever, and one surely would be. We should be holding our candidate to a much, much higher standard. The thought process should be "gee, if these are the guys we have to compare our candidate to, we might really be in trouble."
1
I want to like the Clintons but both are walking national security time bombs. Bill could easily have been blackmailed by a foreign power over his Monica affair. Now appears Hillary put all her Sec of State emails at risk. Reckless disregard for the natural consequences on one's actions equals intent. Very, very troubling.
According to the results of the FBI investigation it seems that there was indeed clear evidence Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had broken federal laws on classified information. This seems to be by itself a crime regardless of the intention. Isn't it so? Can the journalist explain this?
In addition, is Mr. Comey's only justification not to recommend charges the fact that, as he says, “no reasonable prosecutor would pursue an indictment in the case"? He is not the prosecutor. How and why did he make this decisive assumption? Is this is job?
In addition, is Mr. Comey's only justification not to recommend charges the fact that, as he says, “no reasonable prosecutor would pursue an indictment in the case"? He is not the prosecutor. How and why did he make this decisive assumption? Is this is job?
1
Much ado about nothing. And please, spare me the lecture about "classified" email. More often than not, such designation is to shield the government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing overseas.
1
A Sanders supporter writes:
"...Hillary did not garner enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination without super delegate votes..."
The Democratic Party has far more "super delegates" than the Republican Party. That system was put in place decades ago to prevent "another McGovern" from getting the nomination. Now it's being used on Sanders. Surprise, surprise.
"...Hillary did not garner enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination without super delegate votes..."
The Democratic Party has far more "super delegates" than the Republican Party. That system was put in place decades ago to prevent "another McGovern" from getting the nomination. Now it's being used on Sanders. Surprise, surprise.
1
It is amazing how the press is smacking Hillary Clinton down, yea, it wasn't the best decision, but to say, technically, that if she had used the official email server she is not going to be subject to hacking, is ludicrous to say the least. Let's agree on something, she did not invade Iraq with lame excuses, or sold snake oil university to desperate people, didn't pay people for the work they completed, nothing that comes close. I can't believe how this issue is elevated like it is the end of the world problem. America, we have real serious issues, let's face it, this is not one of them.
1
Lets get some perspective here. 29883 out of 30000 is 99.62% pure - a bit better than Ivory at 99 and 44/100.
1
Hillary is the perfect successor to Obama as either one can claim the title of most practiced liar in the long history of the Western democracies. Obama lied every time he spoke for passage of the APA and Hillary has lied every time she tried to talk her way past the criminal pay-to-play fund-raising scandal and the email cover-up the money game demanded.
Who knew that Comey would use the lie that the law demanded intentional negligence, when clearly it does not?
Either he is equally as crooked as Hillarry and Obama or there are family members of his buried under some hideaway in the woods with only a limited amount of air to breathe.
Who knew that Comey would use the lie that the law demanded intentional negligence, when clearly it does not?
Either he is equally as crooked as Hillarry and Obama or there are family members of his buried under some hideaway in the woods with only a limited amount of air to breathe.
"She remains, far and away, the most experienced and knowledgeable candidate for the presidency, particularly when compared with Mr. Trump."
Right...
Mr. Trump hasn't destroyed evidence, so he's got no "experience" there vs Hillary.
Mr. Trump hasn't exposed Top Secret emails to our enemies, so he's got no "experience" there vs Hillary either.
Mr. Trump hasn't turned Libya into the hell hole that it is today, so he's got no "experience" there. Hillary owns the Libya mess.
Mr. Trump hasn't backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, so he's got no "experience" there. Hillary does.
Shall we go on?
Right...
Mr. Trump hasn't destroyed evidence, so he's got no "experience" there vs Hillary.
Mr. Trump hasn't exposed Top Secret emails to our enemies, so he's got no "experience" there vs Hillary either.
Mr. Trump hasn't turned Libya into the hell hole that it is today, so he's got no "experience" there. Hillary owns the Libya mess.
Mr. Trump hasn't backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, so he's got no "experience" there. Hillary does.
Shall we go on?
The meeting that shouldn't have happened in retrospect had to happen. For full disclosure let me state that I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. I felt then as I do now that she is the most qualified person who is seeking the presidency. Former President Bill Clinton meeting with the US Attorney General may have been planned, or the second greatest SNAFU to date during this election year. The first of course being Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party.
That meeting and the subsequent disclosure of it forced the Attorney General to wash her hands on the email investigation findings. She stated that she would accept the FBI's recommendation as submitted. That is what the public heard and that is what the media reported.
Now let me translate what the FBI Director, the political establishment, and I heard:
"Director, you can decide who the next President will be or you can leave it to the Americans people in November."
So the FBI chief washed his hands as well.
That meeting and the subsequent disclosure of it forced the Attorney General to wash her hands on the email investigation findings. She stated that she would accept the FBI's recommendation as submitted. That is what the public heard and that is what the media reported.
Now let me translate what the FBI Director, the political establishment, and I heard:
"Director, you can decide who the next President will be or you can leave it to the Americans people in November."
So the FBI chief washed his hands as well.
Hillary is maligned for her pattern of lying and law-breaking, but we need a strong person to run the country. This private server issue, the "it was the video" gambit, the tarmac bribe by her husband . . .
C'mon folks! This is how politics works.
Hillary is a great businesswoman. She went from being a middle-class Arkansas lawyer to being worth over $50 million in a relatively short period of time.
Donald Trump likes to brag about his great deals, but Hillary puts Trump to shame.
C'mon folks! This is how politics works.
Hillary is a great businesswoman. She went from being a middle-class Arkansas lawyer to being worth over $50 million in a relatively short period of time.
Donald Trump likes to brag about his great deals, but Hillary puts Trump to shame.
You're dreamin'...........The F.B.I. condemnation was clearly political. The "extremely careless" need not have been said. That was a clearly political comment.
2
So much concern trolling, for much ado about nothing.
Good thing you pointed out the precedent set by the last two Republican Secretaries of State, Powell and Rice, who also had private emails.
Oh wait, you didn't. Because if you're not a Clinton or a democrat it's not a scandal.
Move on. Our country deserves better from the New York Times.
Good thing you pointed out the precedent set by the last two Republican Secretaries of State, Powell and Rice, who also had private emails.
Oh wait, you didn't. Because if you're not a Clinton or a democrat it's not a scandal.
Move on. Our country deserves better from the New York Times.
2
Looks like this Is the perfect time for the DNC and RNC to change their convention nominating rules. Neither party has given the people a candidate worthy of being our president. Sometimes when opportunity knocks, you just have to open the door. Looks like opportunity is knocking right now.
Bernie - you were wrong about the emails. But a DNC that nominates Bernie will have far greater success than with any other proposed candidate to date.
As for the RNC, they should consider Comey, even if he doesn't want the job. He's not perfect because after all, gross mishandling is a form of negligence and negligence never requires intent, but he is far and away the best the Reps have to offer.
Bernie - you were wrong about the emails. But a DNC that nominates Bernie will have far greater success than with any other proposed candidate to date.
As for the RNC, they should consider Comey, even if he doesn't want the job. He's not perfect because after all, gross mishandling is a form of negligence and negligence never requires intent, but he is far and away the best the Reps have to offer.
1
If Colin Powell's use of email received the same level of scrutiny that was given to Clinton, what would be found? Just curious.
3
This is Hillary's "Nixon Moment." Now, she can proudly proclaim, "I am not a crook!"
2
Imagine Hillary's and the MSM reaction if Donad Trump had one classified document on his personal phone.
In this satirical piece, FBI investigators strongly disagree with their boss, James Comey, and with this Times editorial.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/fbi-agents-privately-discuss-comeys-state...
http://investmentwatchblog.com/fbi-agents-privately-discuss-comeys-state...
1
"As Mrs. Clinton said in the past, and her campaign reiterated on Tuesday, her decision to use private email was a mistake"
... indeed...
But come on..... it was never hidden and is, ultimately, a systemic mistake that is being remedied....
An otherwise fine and dedicated public servant, who has been in the thick of it for decades, with wide latitude make mistakes...
Let's move on....
... indeed...
But come on..... it was never hidden and is, ultimately, a systemic mistake that is being remedied....
An otherwise fine and dedicated public servant, who has been in the thick of it for decades, with wide latitude make mistakes...
Let's move on....
1
The Clintons are like "Big Jule" in Guys and Dolls - "My record shows I went straight. 32 arrests, no convictions."
"evasive OR misleading"??? She LIED about her emails to the American people every time she spoke about them, and in a sworn affidavit to the judge in a FOIA lawsuit, and then refused to even meet with her own agency's Inspector General to explain what she had done! She has yet to make a single factually correct statement on this matter, but she somehow manages to shake off perjury charges from the FBI just days after her husband shakes down the AG.
1
"Evasive and misleading." Hillary Clinton in a nutshell. It will be hard for this lifelong Democrat to vote for her.
2
>>>>
I don't care whether they indicted her or not. We have Bernie or Bidden in the stables. I'd just have to change the recipient of my donations.
Comey, the media's hero for a day, should be fired for taking so long to come to ANY conclusion to this straightforward case. These investigations are always political and stretched out to absurd lengths, and this one is no different. Moreover, if the conventions were not coming up, this investigation would go on for another year.
There is no way you're going to convince the Titan that this investigation should have taken this long. To repeat the GOP's line, a career gov't official would have been fired or prosecuted......, maybe, but that process would've taken about 45-days.
Also for the intellectually challenged of the would, Comey and Justice, investigate thousands of people every day; some they indict, others they don't, but what they don't do with the ones not indicted is go on TV and score political points, or for that matter, even clear them and proclaim their innocences. They remain silent on the matter.
I don't care whether they indicted her or not. We have Bernie or Bidden in the stables. I'd just have to change the recipient of my donations.
Comey, the media's hero for a day, should be fired for taking so long to come to ANY conclusion to this straightforward case. These investigations are always political and stretched out to absurd lengths, and this one is no different. Moreover, if the conventions were not coming up, this investigation would go on for another year.
There is no way you're going to convince the Titan that this investigation should have taken this long. To repeat the GOP's line, a career gov't official would have been fired or prosecuted......, maybe, but that process would've taken about 45-days.
Also for the intellectually challenged of the would, Comey and Justice, investigate thousands of people every day; some they indict, others they don't, but what they don't do with the ones not indicted is go on TV and score political points, or for that matter, even clear them and proclaim their innocences. They remain silent on the matter.
1
Hillary Clinton used her private email server for her entire period as SOC -- about 4 years....Did no one know this? Did the White House not know this? Did anyone say anything? So, she did something apparently openly for 4 years with no complaints, and only after resigning as SOC is an investigation started. And since when does a prosecutor say anything other than I am, or am not, going to prosecute?
When else has Comey made public comments about the "extreme carelessness" of any other person he has declined to indict? Did he make public comments about Gen Petreaus -- who knowingly gave classified material to his mistress??? And got barely a slap on the wrist for that??
I recall no investigations of Colin Powell or Condi Rice....it seems that the Clintons, and actually Democrats generally, are held to far higher standards than anyone else, and certainly higher standards than any Republican.
When else has Comey made public comments about the "extreme carelessness" of any other person he has declined to indict? Did he make public comments about Gen Petreaus -- who knowingly gave classified material to his mistress??? And got barely a slap on the wrist for that??
I recall no investigations of Colin Powell or Condi Rice....it seems that the Clintons, and actually Democrats generally, are held to far higher standards than anyone else, and certainly higher standards than any Republican.
1
Memo to the NYTs - there was a statement from Mr. Comey, but there was no legal clarity.
1
I'm With Not As Bad As The Other Candidate...
For the first time in this political year I have doubts that Mrs. Clinton is qualified to be President. How can anyone so smart be so stupid?
"This legal decision is undoubtedly correct." And "experts" are saying that there have been no prosecutions unless intent was suspected -- even though the law clearly includes the possibility of "gross negligence."
Really? What about the Naval reservist successfully prosecuted just last year for a far less serious security breach with no factor of intent alleged?
Also, someone please explain the difference between what Comey describes as Clinton's extreme carelessness and the law's stated "gross negligence"?
Really? What about the Naval reservist successfully prosecuted just last year for a far less serious security breach with no factor of intent alleged?
Also, someone please explain the difference between what Comey describes as Clinton's extreme carelessness and the law's stated "gross negligence"?
1
If Hillary Clinton's use of a personal server was so illegal, then why haven't other government officials been investigated and prosecuted for the same "crime?" Surely Condi Rice and Colin Powell also should have been investigated and prosecuted, along with the governors and Congressmen who also used personal servers. For that matter, why wasn't the Bush administration investigated or prosecuted for its "loss" of thousands of e-mails? Why wasn't it investigated for its use of faulty intelligence when it made its "case" for invading Iraq? Why wasn't the Bush administration investigated for "outing" Valerie Plame, a CIA agent?
It's amazing to me that the Republicans can get away with persecuting Democrats, and the Clintons in particular, by trying to link them to a series of "scandals" and "criminal behavior" when Republicans have been guilty of far worse with no consequences whatsoever. I guess the rules are that if a Republican does it, hands off, but if a Democrat does it (or if a Republican claims a Democrats does it), then let the games begin! Who cares if we waste millions of taxpayer dollars on these witch hunts!
The incessant, unrelenting hypocrisy of the GOP is like nails scratching on a blackboard. I've no patience for it, it hurts my ears and my soul, and I want it to stop. The GOP is a "party" that's sold ITS soul, and they need to go for the sake of the nation.
It's amazing to me that the Republicans can get away with persecuting Democrats, and the Clintons in particular, by trying to link them to a series of "scandals" and "criminal behavior" when Republicans have been guilty of far worse with no consequences whatsoever. I guess the rules are that if a Republican does it, hands off, but if a Democrat does it (or if a Republican claims a Democrats does it), then let the games begin! Who cares if we waste millions of taxpayer dollars on these witch hunts!
The incessant, unrelenting hypocrisy of the GOP is like nails scratching on a blackboard. I've no patience for it, it hurts my ears and my soul, and I want it to stop. The GOP is a "party" that's sold ITS soul, and they need to go for the sake of the nation.
2
My question is how can classified material even get to an unclassified computer?
Computers with classified material should not be connected to the internet and should not have usb ports that allow people to copy files.
Computers with classified material should not be connected to the internet and should not have usb ports that allow people to copy files.
We knew about the emails, AND we voted for her. How much more clarity do 6need?
Bernie Sanders is "experienced and knowledgable." So is Dick Cheney. Your own readers aren't drinking the Kool-Aid.
I'm getting sick of this "It's somebody else's fault" excuses:
"Unfortunately, this is what we have to look forward to for the next 4 years...no problems will be solved, no policies crafted....just more investigation by the House GOP..."
It wasn't the House GOP that chose to send and receive all official emails from a server in her basement -- it was Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State. It wasn't the House GOP that met with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport -- it was the husband of Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State.
"Unfortunately, this is what we have to look forward to for the next 4 years...no problems will be solved, no policies crafted....just more investigation by the House GOP..."
It wasn't the House GOP that chose to send and receive all official emails from a server in her basement -- it was Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State. It wasn't the House GOP that met with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport -- it was the husband of Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State.
2
All this impropriety is why Hillary Clinton will be a 1-term "asterisk" President at best. The GOP will get its act together preventing a reoccurrence of a demagogue and the progressives are likely to form a new party. Hillary Clinton: Asterisk President
1
Warren 2020!
2
"Political"? What a headline. The NYT might have written a headline that it was not a crime but was . . . Dishonest, Unethical, Irreponsible, Extremely Careless, Negligent, the list goes on. "Political" merely implies that it exposes her to partisan attack. So what? This is much worse than that.
2
I would never vote for Trump. But nor will I vote for Clinton. This case to me validates much of the hearsay I have heard over the years about the Clintons and their utter lack of integrity and lust for power. You may have heard the recent story of the secret service agent saying how utterly rude and obnoxious she was while in Bill's White House. I will tell you that I heard the same from the Secret Service while I was in the US Attorney's Office during the 1990s. They both have talent, though Hilary is where she is because of Bill. Both could place all of their character on the head of a pin.
2
If she was extremely careless, wasn't she guilty of dereliction of duty and due diligence expected of her? It was not a coincidence that Comey washing his hands off this matter on the very day Obama was campaigning with her in NC. It was all well orchestrated charade.
2
Yes, the long and exhaustive FBI investigation essentially indicted Secretary Clinton's judgment and competence. Couple that with corruption and untrustworthiness.
If the Democratic Party machine can't see this and still insists on nominating her, then Senator Sanders should start a new party NOW, for THIS election.
It could be called the New Deal Party, in honor of the great FDR.
And yes, let's get right to work restoring the great and fundamental middle class and give Americans a New Deal.
[And if the Democratic Party machine is worried about Trump, they should pull Secretary Clinton and support Senator Sanders.]
If the Democratic Party machine can't see this and still insists on nominating her, then Senator Sanders should start a new party NOW, for THIS election.
It could be called the New Deal Party, in honor of the great FDR.
And yes, let's get right to work restoring the great and fundamental middle class and give Americans a New Deal.
[And if the Democratic Party machine is worried about Trump, they should pull Secretary Clinton and support Senator Sanders.]
Glad that NYT called out what is right; but there is no chance whatsoever that Clintons's will come clean here as well as about Clinton Foundation. (Read: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/most-corrupt-candidate-ever...
Anyways, we are not fortunate in this country to get any honest rulers. The sense of 'entitlement' with Clintons is unfathomable. They will be always corrupt (so sad that John Podesta is willing to destroy his reputations for Hillary).
We just hold our noses and vote for Hillary; otherwise we get Donald Trump! (Fellow Americans, we are screwed either way; Hillary is the better of two evils; OK, do you get it?)
Anyways, we are not fortunate in this country to get any honest rulers. The sense of 'entitlement' with Clintons is unfathomable. They will be always corrupt (so sad that John Podesta is willing to destroy his reputations for Hillary).
We just hold our noses and vote for Hillary; otherwise we get Donald Trump! (Fellow Americans, we are screwed either way; Hillary is the better of two evils; OK, do you get it?)
One thing we know for sure, the State Department servers WERE hacked, penetrated by foreign powers; yet, despite the minutest of investigations, there’s not a shred of evidence Hillary Clinton’s servers ever were. The only fair conclusion is that her choice of a private server preserved the national security rather than endangering it.
Second, what supposedly “top secret” secrets did these emails hold? (Irony of ironies, thanks to leaks to the press from either the Congressional Committee investigating Mrs. Clinton or from the FBI itself—without which these “secrets” would have remained secret—we have a pretty good idea: the New York Times publishes an article on the CIA assassination-by-drone program and an aide emails a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Since the CIA drone program is a “top secret” her emails now contain “top secret information”, top secret information that has already been printed in the New York Times. This is the tenor of “secrets” that are now, after the fact, being classified “top secret”.
Fools for scandal, you’ll have to trump up something better than this.
Second, what supposedly “top secret” secrets did these emails hold? (Irony of ironies, thanks to leaks to the press from either the Congressional Committee investigating Mrs. Clinton or from the FBI itself—without which these “secrets” would have remained secret—we have a pretty good idea: the New York Times publishes an article on the CIA assassination-by-drone program and an aide emails a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Since the CIA drone program is a “top secret” her emails now contain “top secret information”, top secret information that has already been printed in the New York Times. This is the tenor of “secrets” that are now, after the fact, being classified “top secret”.
Fools for scandal, you’ll have to trump up something better than this.
1
30,000emails, plus maybe 100 that had to be classified 'up' after the fact plus maybe 20/30,000 ? Seems like Roger Ailes is tossing and turning!
1
There was no criminal intent but, we are told,Clinton was very negligent. That is not nearly as bad as Comey suggested. Obama was very careless in exceeding his regulatory authority. Bush in Iraq. Clinton with Lewinsky. Reagan with the Contras. The FBI with 9/11. Trump almost every day. There is a world of difference between intending harm and screwing up. No one gets through life without screwing up. Comey suggested that there is a sliding scale between intent and bad carelessness. But intentional crimes and careless actions are not close. Comey's judgment was poor. Clinton got a raw deal.
... can't handle email. wants to run country...
1
Somehow this whole debate seems surreal -- a bit of "magical realism" from the Global North. The idea that the person who said "we came, we saw and he died" in reference to Gadaffi should be under scrutiny for misuse of her email account is a bit like criticising Hermann Goering for his choice of neckties.
Either the system is broken or even good people can be ''gotten to'' and made corrupt.
The laws concerning this secret information make ne allowance for intent at all. It is like speeding in your car: if you did it, the gov't has due cause to move against you.
At no time did Mr. Comey ever hear from instructors that whether the lawbreaker intended to harm the county amount to part of the prosecution decision. So, this was all a pretend decision point for a man who either was himself partial to a political ally or was being forced to let agn arrogant scofflaw go free.
There is only one reason Hillary Clinton is even involved here: she married Bill. Therefore:
The intentions that Bill Clinton's spouse meant to do this are numerous. She repeatedly is seen telling her underlings - none of whom had the clearances to even be dealing with these state secrets - to remove the secrecy citations from messages and send them to/through equipment unable to maintain secrecy.
THAT IS INTENT.
Hillary so intended to break these laws that she only hired lawyers to do this dirty work and then hired them as her own attorneys. That ALSO proves INTENT.
Karma is such a terror. Will the price for these crimes be laid or her or, as the Eastern philosophies always say, will they be laid on her daughter and the grandchildren?
The laws concerning this secret information make ne allowance for intent at all. It is like speeding in your car: if you did it, the gov't has due cause to move against you.
At no time did Mr. Comey ever hear from instructors that whether the lawbreaker intended to harm the county amount to part of the prosecution decision. So, this was all a pretend decision point for a man who either was himself partial to a political ally or was being forced to let agn arrogant scofflaw go free.
There is only one reason Hillary Clinton is even involved here: she married Bill. Therefore:
The intentions that Bill Clinton's spouse meant to do this are numerous. She repeatedly is seen telling her underlings - none of whom had the clearances to even be dealing with these state secrets - to remove the secrecy citations from messages and send them to/through equipment unable to maintain secrecy.
THAT IS INTENT.
Hillary so intended to break these laws that she only hired lawyers to do this dirty work and then hired them as her own attorneys. That ALSO proves INTENT.
Karma is such a terror. Will the price for these crimes be laid or her or, as the Eastern philosophies always say, will they be laid on her daughter and the grandchildren?
"Mr. Comey’s remarks also contradicted Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertion that she didn’t send or receive material that was “marked classified” at the time. She did."
So she lied.
"Mr. Comey’s conclusions — legal recommendation aside — can be seen as nothing less than a censure of Mrs. Clinton’s judgment."
So she has bad judgment.
A liar with bad judgment. Just what we all want in a President.
So she lied.
"Mr. Comey’s conclusions — legal recommendation aside — can be seen as nothing less than a censure of Mrs. Clinton’s judgment."
So she has bad judgment.
A liar with bad judgment. Just what we all want in a President.
1
Didn't Powell, Rice , President Bush have private email servers?
I am little puzzled.
I am little puzzled.
1
Maybe we can be like the Brits on Brexit and ask for a "do over" on both the Democratic and Republican primaries!
A part of me wonders if wounding Clinton but letting her go on is a Comey plot, as any other Democrat polls better against Trump. Biden or Sanders would win a landslide.
I don't remember where it says in the job description for Secretary of State of the United States that one must be both an IT expert and an IT security expert. I guess I must have missed that part.
I worked as a programmer in clinical trials for over 20 years and the implementation of 21 CFR Part 11 had a serious impact on acceptable practices. I would have to argue endlessly with people who were expert in other areas why their traditional ways of doing things violated 21 CFR 11. People were reluctant due to inertia ("We've always done it this way), ignorance, and the fact that the change in procedures introduced much new work in some areas, but less in others. Still, mistakes happened, accidents happened, and, sometimes, orneriness happened, too.
It's Hillary Clinton so people who already hate her ASSUME she's got evil intent and regardless of the ACTUAL law needs to be prosecuted because.......she's Hillary Clinton and they've been fed 24 years of Fox et al generating negative propaganda about her, most of it deliberate lies.
I worked as a programmer in clinical trials for over 20 years and the implementation of 21 CFR Part 11 had a serious impact on acceptable practices. I would have to argue endlessly with people who were expert in other areas why their traditional ways of doing things violated 21 CFR 11. People were reluctant due to inertia ("We've always done it this way), ignorance, and the fact that the change in procedures introduced much new work in some areas, but less in others. Still, mistakes happened, accidents happened, and, sometimes, orneriness happened, too.
It's Hillary Clinton so people who already hate her ASSUME she's got evil intent and regardless of the ACTUAL law needs to be prosecuted because.......she's Hillary Clinton and they've been fed 24 years of Fox et al generating negative propaganda about her, most of it deliberate lies.
3
"Mr. Comey explained that there was no clear evidence Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intentionally broken any federal laws on classified information, and he said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue an indictment in the case."
First of all, why would Comey speak for any prosecutor, leave alone 'reasonable prosecutor' and determine whether or not they would pursue any indictment in this case? His job is to ascertain facts, present them with the damning comments he made to the prosecution, and they can decide. But then, the DOJ under Lynch may well have chosen not to proceed with indictment but that was a call Lynch should have made.
Secondly, Comey said Hillary and her aides WERE extremely CARELESS whereas your editors say that their PRACTICES were EXTREMELY CARELESS. Big difference. It is not the practices under indictment; it is Hillary's judgment.
Thirdly, if, as Comey said, a reasonable person in the position of Hillary SHOULD have known not to store or send messages that were top secret through uncertified, unsecured servers, and if, as Huma testified, Hillary chose to do so because she did not want her messages to be part of pubic record, then, of course, HILLARY INTENTIONALLY broke the laws pertaining to official record-keeping and to handling sensitive matter.
If Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in handling sensitive info, how can we trust her with the nuclear codes? She also lied about turning over all work emails to DOS as Comey said.
#Unfit.
First of all, why would Comey speak for any prosecutor, leave alone 'reasonable prosecutor' and determine whether or not they would pursue any indictment in this case? His job is to ascertain facts, present them with the damning comments he made to the prosecution, and they can decide. But then, the DOJ under Lynch may well have chosen not to proceed with indictment but that was a call Lynch should have made.
Secondly, Comey said Hillary and her aides WERE extremely CARELESS whereas your editors say that their PRACTICES were EXTREMELY CARELESS. Big difference. It is not the practices under indictment; it is Hillary's judgment.
Thirdly, if, as Comey said, a reasonable person in the position of Hillary SHOULD have known not to store or send messages that were top secret through uncertified, unsecured servers, and if, as Huma testified, Hillary chose to do so because she did not want her messages to be part of pubic record, then, of course, HILLARY INTENTIONALLY broke the laws pertaining to official record-keeping and to handling sensitive matter.
If Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in handling sensitive info, how can we trust her with the nuclear codes? She also lied about turning over all work emails to DOS as Comey said.
#Unfit.
1
"...the Clintons can't seem to avoid doing their business without wandering into grey areas...."
Grey areas? We have a right to assume our Secretary of State is sending and receiving emails on some protected government system -- not from a server in her basement. She didn't even have an email address on that protected government system.
Some people seek to justify what she did by arguing that dedicated hackers could probably hack even the State Department's computer system -- indeed, maybe they actually did. But that's no excuse for bypassing the State Department's computer system and using some server in your basement that could be hacked (and probably was) by some bored 14-year old kid sitting cross-legged on his bed with a laptop.
A crime? I have no idea. But crime or not, it's almost beyond belief that this could actually have happened.
Grey areas? We have a right to assume our Secretary of State is sending and receiving emails on some protected government system -- not from a server in her basement. She didn't even have an email address on that protected government system.
Some people seek to justify what she did by arguing that dedicated hackers could probably hack even the State Department's computer system -- indeed, maybe they actually did. But that's no excuse for bypassing the State Department's computer system and using some server in your basement that could be hacked (and probably was) by some bored 14-year old kid sitting cross-legged on his bed with a laptop.
A crime? I have no idea. But crime or not, it's almost beyond belief that this could actually have happened.
Now that so many have vilified Clinton, let's look at Comey. He reminds me of
J. Edgar Hoover who considered himself omnipotent under the guise of national security. For Comey to announce his position and findings without briefing his superiors, e.g., Lynch or Obama, strikes me as a guy obsessed with control.
And before anyone claims that Lynch or Obama would've censored Comey's position, think again. If Comey would rush to Ashcroft's hospital bed to claim his stake in power and to thwart the actions of attorney general Gonzalez and chief of staff Card, Comey would not have hesitated to throw a tempter tantrum if Obama or Lynn interfered.
Bottom line, where does this guy get off announcing his decision to the world without briefing his superiors if for no other reason than it's the chain of command. Minimally, he could have held a joint conference with the Department of Justice, but that would've stolen his thunder.
J Edgar Hoover deja vu.
J. Edgar Hoover who considered himself omnipotent under the guise of national security. For Comey to announce his position and findings without briefing his superiors, e.g., Lynch or Obama, strikes me as a guy obsessed with control.
And before anyone claims that Lynch or Obama would've censored Comey's position, think again. If Comey would rush to Ashcroft's hospital bed to claim his stake in power and to thwart the actions of attorney general Gonzalez and chief of staff Card, Comey would not have hesitated to throw a tempter tantrum if Obama or Lynn interfered.
Bottom line, where does this guy get off announcing his decision to the world without briefing his superiors if for no other reason than it's the chain of command. Minimally, he could have held a joint conference with the Department of Justice, but that would've stolen his thunder.
J Edgar Hoover deja vu.
1
This entire matter is absurd. No harm was done. None was meant. No profit was made. No lives lost. When the errors, or lack of security, became known, rectifying it, fixing it, was all that needed to be done.
2
Do people really accept this "She's just a geezer who doesn't understand these fancy computer gizmos?"
Seriously?
What most "geezers" do in that situation -- especially geezer Secretaries of State -- is LISTEN to the young beanie-copter techno-nerds who tell them they should be using an official email address on an official government server. Maybe the geezer doesn't understand why that's important, but he or she will just shrug and defer to the techno-nerds on that one. That's what they're there for.
Seriously?
What most "geezers" do in that situation -- especially geezer Secretaries of State -- is LISTEN to the young beanie-copter techno-nerds who tell them they should be using an official email address on an official government server. Maybe the geezer doesn't understand why that's important, but he or she will just shrug and defer to the techno-nerds on that one. That's what they're there for.
Donald, release your tax returns and let us level the playing field when it comes to moral outrage.
It is not the job of the director of the FBI or any other agency head to publicly rebuke anyone. Comey's job is to investigate criminal activity. His personal appraisals are not the point. A public venting of subjective assessment is way out of line. He should be removed.
Futher, is this really worthy of a banner headline on the NYT first page? Really? Same as the moon landing or the sinking of the Titanic? Really?
Futher, is this really worthy of a banner headline on the NYT first page? Really? Same as the moon landing or the sinking of the Titanic? Really?
2
two rules, one for Clinton's and another for use poor taxpayers. And it is unbelievable that the Times would fall in line with the Democrats saying that "It's ok."
1
Given the outcome of the FBI investigation why does Hillary still have top security clearance? Shouldn't we care about this?
I, also, am SO tired of hearing about her damn emails. This issue is NOTHING in the broad picture of where we are going as a country.
2
Clinton risked indictment, but Trump has a 'blank check". Because Donald Trump has never worked one day in government, he has a clean record, and he is above criticism.
How can it be that millions of voters are willing to trust a total novice to run the country, while they attack a candidate with vast experience?
Imagine going to a doctor or a lawyer with zero experience. Imagine a professional sports team hiring a coach or a player with zero experience, for millions of dollars.
I suggest that Hillary Clinton remind voters that Donald Trump has zero experience and that they are fools to elect him. She might use some catchwords or symbols. I suggest she try making a zero (0) sign with fingers and the thumb to do this.
The only thing we have to fear in this election is Donald O Trump!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(That's Donald "Zero" Trump or D. O. T with the big mouth)
How can it be that millions of voters are willing to trust a total novice to run the country, while they attack a candidate with vast experience?
Imagine going to a doctor or a lawyer with zero experience. Imagine a professional sports team hiring a coach or a player with zero experience, for millions of dollars.
I suggest that Hillary Clinton remind voters that Donald Trump has zero experience and that they are fools to elect him. She might use some catchwords or symbols. I suggest she try making a zero (0) sign with fingers and the thumb to do this.
The only thing we have to fear in this election is Donald O Trump!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(That's Donald "Zero" Trump or D. O. T with the big mouth)
8
NYT defends and supports Hillary, so its ok, to violate the law, (intent is NOT required ) its ok, that she lied, ( over and over again ) its ok, that she for political reasons kept several unsecured servers and electronic devices, its ok, that her attorneys destroyed evidence. its ok, that secret information is most likely in the hands of (who knows who) Why ? because its Hillary, there candidate for President a member of the elite and majority of NYT readers support her. NYT is just as corrupt and its editorials are nothing more than propaganda.
2
Bush White House email controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy#cite_no...
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy#cite_no...
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States.
4
You're just providing proof that HRC isn't too savvy at withholding information. How could the public expect her to lead by example?
NYT, give it up already. Hunt for your Pulitzer Prize elsewhere. Most sane readers are, and have always been, tired of reading about these emails. Seriously, this is the most boring scandal ever.
1
Yeah...felonies, dead Americans, national security lapses...lies...BO-RING...can we get some comic book characters on these pages, the Obama liberals are getting restless.
2
Sadly, it is all about arrogance. The rules are for the little people. The amazing thing is Secretary Clinton knows this trait has already cost her husband any chance for history to consider him a great president.
1
History doesn't pay the bills.
1
Her strategy that is now working!
Her strategy was to drip statements, drip, drip drip, about convenience, about convenience of one BlackBerry (not several devices), about no classified emails were sent, about taking classified seriously, claiming she didn’t know the technology so “wipe” a server would mean “wipe with a cloth.”
Drip drip drip under circumstances where the public would "trust" her and therefore emotionally bond.
So that when her intentional avoidance of FOIA would become known, when her MULTIPLE DEVICES and MULTIPLE PERSONAL SERVERS would become known, when her emailing top secrets would become known, the emotional bond would hold.
Indeed, Hillary’s strategy -- to lie and mislead and emotionally impress early and often during the yearlong investigation -- has worked so well!
The FBI Director concludes that, based on the investigation, Hillary’s misconduct was "EXTREMELY CARELESS" but the FBI Director does not even reference the criminal liability standard in the statute which intends guilt and punishment if "GROSSLY NEGLIGENT."
The FBI Director is no longer credible.
President Obama says Hillary is the "MOST QUALIFIED" candidate ever.
All those emotionally bonded Hillary worshipers say “poor thing,” instead of saying: YOU LIED TO US DURING THE WHOLE INVESTIGATION, WE TRUSTED YOUR STORY, YOU BETRAYED OUR TRUST, YOU ARE the MOST DISQUALIFIED candidate ever for Unites States as President. RESIGN!
Her strategy was to drip statements, drip, drip drip, about convenience, about convenience of one BlackBerry (not several devices), about no classified emails were sent, about taking classified seriously, claiming she didn’t know the technology so “wipe” a server would mean “wipe with a cloth.”
Drip drip drip under circumstances where the public would "trust" her and therefore emotionally bond.
So that when her intentional avoidance of FOIA would become known, when her MULTIPLE DEVICES and MULTIPLE PERSONAL SERVERS would become known, when her emailing top secrets would become known, the emotional bond would hold.
Indeed, Hillary’s strategy -- to lie and mislead and emotionally impress early and often during the yearlong investigation -- has worked so well!
The FBI Director concludes that, based on the investigation, Hillary’s misconduct was "EXTREMELY CARELESS" but the FBI Director does not even reference the criminal liability standard in the statute which intends guilt and punishment if "GROSSLY NEGLIGENT."
The FBI Director is no longer credible.
President Obama says Hillary is the "MOST QUALIFIED" candidate ever.
All those emotionally bonded Hillary worshipers say “poor thing,” instead of saying: YOU LIED TO US DURING THE WHOLE INVESTIGATION, WE TRUSTED YOUR STORY, YOU BETRAYED OUR TRUST, YOU ARE the MOST DISQUALIFIED candidate ever for Unites States as President. RESIGN!
1
Why is Trump or the Republican party mentioned in comments regarding Mr. Comey's statements? Please focus on what he said, and how it contradicted Ms. Clinton's explanations of her email use!
Since when does " not intending to break the law" mean someone cannot be prosecuted for breaking it? I still get speeding tickets for accidentally exceeding the speed limit, and that doesn't jeopardize national security. If you accidentally take something from a store you still get prosecuted for shoplifting, and that does not jeopardize national security. If I don't report a crime I witness because I didn't know I was legally require to report it, I still get prosecuted for not reporting it. I think they let her of because of who she is, and where she is in the political landscape at this time. Who else does the FBI let off because of lack of intent?
1
The F.B.I. are mass murderers......I'm not at all interested in their political instigations.
1
This whole thing is a taxpayer-financed smear campaign.
3
Yet again we learn that Hillary has a Big Problem with telling the Truth at times, while seemingly not pathological like lying is with The Donald, Mrs. Clinton, like her husband before her, will lie when it suits her. Unfortunately for many reasons, some justified, we live in a time where more & more people do not trust the system so when Mr. Trump says, "the system is rigged," it rings true for a lot of people on both the left & the right. While I'm not sure if the system is rigged in this particular instance with no charges being brought against Mrs. Clinton I do question the timing of the FBI report. Why couldn't this report have come out say a month or more before the primaries ended & then maybe we'd be looking at the person I voted for, Bernie Sanders, as the presumptive Democratic nominee? Instead I will be voting for Mrs. Clinton as CERTAINLY the Lesser of 2 evils in this election because OUR Country & the World can ill afford Donald Trump as President!
What I & a lot of other Voters would like to see now from Mrs. Clinton is an UNEQUIVOCAL Apology for her role in this email debacle but I will be quite surprised if that's what she'll do. Unfortunately if she doesn't make such an apology this incident will continue to hang above her like the Sword of Damocles & if it falls & she loses the election OUR Country & the World will be the ones who truly suffer!
What I & a lot of other Voters would like to see now from Mrs. Clinton is an UNEQUIVOCAL Apology for her role in this email debacle but I will be quite surprised if that's what she'll do. Unfortunately if she doesn't make such an apology this incident will continue to hang above her like the Sword of Damocles & if it falls & she loses the election OUR Country & the World will be the ones who truly suffer!
1
She keeps apologizing for "mistakes." We don't need another apology, after which we are to say, "OK, now we'll forget the whole thing, since she apologized."
1
Hilary - Not the most trustworthy person in the world for sure. She is a smart woman that continually does some stupid things that make you want to pull your hair out of your head.
But to coin a frequently used word from FBI Director Comey's censure of Mrs. Clinton, any "reasonable" person should not vote for Donald Trump.
It's a still a slam dunk for me at the polls. I have no better option. I'm with her.
But to coin a frequently used word from FBI Director Comey's censure of Mrs. Clinton, any "reasonable" person should not vote for Donald Trump.
It's a still a slam dunk for me at the polls. I have no better option. I'm with her.
3
So because she was ignorant and didn't INTEND to do anything wrong all is fine a well? Really? So I'm drunk and hit and kill a family. I didn't intend to kill them so can I please go free? Ignorance is not an excuse for doing something wrong. If this would have been an everyday employee they would have either been indicted already or fired from there job! Get your heads out of your rear ends people.
1
What would it take to advance this conversation beyond Hillary's not-so-private server and the potential harm it could have caused in 2013? The truth is, Hillary's emails were vulnerable to hacking on government servers as well. And government servers are still vulnerable. When it comes to national defense, cyber security is a chink in our armor.
Unfortunately, the issue of cyber security is a political liability for Hillary now. Hopefully whomever she taps for VP can credibly take up the issue though. What's Al Gore up to these days?
Unfortunately, the issue of cyber security is a political liability for Hillary now. Hopefully whomever she taps for VP can credibly take up the issue though. What's Al Gore up to these days?
1
This good news bad news story about Hillary Clinton's email server is disturbing, but it raises a series of questions. How many male politicians have had their email usage audited as carefully as Hillary? Is she getting a scrutiny few others have had to withstand?
James Comey was J W Bush appointed. He is a hard nosed Republican who worked on the Whitewater Investigation, which I vaguely recall was an early witch hunt. What I want more information on, is, did Hillary really abuse email more than her peers, or is this mostly another witch hunt?
From Wikipedia, about James Comey:
"He was the United States Deputy Attorney General, serving in President George W. Bush's administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department, serving in that office from December 2003 through August 2005. He was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prior to becoming Deputy Attorney General."
In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, .... In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.
James Comey was J W Bush appointed. He is a hard nosed Republican who worked on the Whitewater Investigation, which I vaguely recall was an early witch hunt. What I want more information on, is, did Hillary really abuse email more than her peers, or is this mostly another witch hunt?
From Wikipedia, about James Comey:
"He was the United States Deputy Attorney General, serving in President George W. Bush's administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department, serving in that office from December 2003 through August 2005. He was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prior to becoming Deputy Attorney General."
In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, .... In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.
You or I would be facing charges for the behavior in which she engaged!
There is no way around this truth and it IS what is wrong with the situation!
There is no way around this truth and it IS what is wrong with the situation!
1
0.00026666666.
That's 30,000 emails divided by the 8 that were the basis for the "extremely careless" remark. There was no established practice at State that she was flaunting. And nothing prevented government servers from being hacked. And the emails of plenty of other administration officials and cabinet members from both sides of the aisle, if subject to the same review, would show the same result.
Has ANY other politician of ANY other party been scrutinized to this degree for this length of time?
Democrats, progressives -- wake up! You are being PLAYED by the GOP and they are loving every minute of it. Do you think Trump could win on his own? No! The GOP is depending on idiot Dems to help him win. They are counting on this oh so self satisfied progressive outrage. Don't be fooled. The GOP will spin this as long as they can, and any Democrat who thinks these 8 email trains are reason enough to destroy our country are not true Democrats.
That's 30,000 emails divided by the 8 that were the basis for the "extremely careless" remark. There was no established practice at State that she was flaunting. And nothing prevented government servers from being hacked. And the emails of plenty of other administration officials and cabinet members from both sides of the aisle, if subject to the same review, would show the same result.
Has ANY other politician of ANY other party been scrutinized to this degree for this length of time?
Democrats, progressives -- wake up! You are being PLAYED by the GOP and they are loving every minute of it. Do you think Trump could win on his own? No! The GOP is depending on idiot Dems to help him win. They are counting on this oh so self satisfied progressive outrage. Don't be fooled. The GOP will spin this as long as they can, and any Democrat who thinks these 8 email trains are reason enough to destroy our country are not true Democrats.
4
It is important that we continue to elect out presidents and not turn the selection over to law enforcement and the courts. If you don’t like what Clinton did, don’t vote for her, but you should not try to jail her on trumped up charges. Please respect our democracy by letting the electorate speak. We don’t need another Bus v Gore court appointed president.
As another commenter aptly put it, this is the "take-away" here, isn't it?
"Admittedly, Trump is far worse than Clinton, but..."
"Admittedly, Trump is far worse than Clinton, but..."
1
Such a Lie, she wouldn't conform. She did what Colin Powell did. The Press has revealed themselves to Hate Clinton. She requested a protected phone & the request was denied by Intel. You get what you pay for on the Antique electronic system they provided.
1
Comey's grandstanding effort to have it both ways -- to clear Clinton and attack her at one and the same time -- is going ruin not Clinton, but him. The Republicans have already begun the crusade to bring him down.
1
if she hasn't learned by now, there is something gravely wrong.
1
America, lay down your torches, your nooses, your clubs and guns..........for Pete's sake! We are talking about E-MAIL here, not the fate of the new world. Now calm down and get on with your lives.........
1
They are all going to vote for her anyway, instead of demanding Sanders be the nominee?
Compare what David Petraeus and Hillary Clinton did to what Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden did. Compare the consequences of their respective actions. Petreaus is a millionaire reaping the benefits of his treason. Hillary is a presidential candidate. Meanwhile, Manning rots in prison and Snowden freezes in Russia.
Now tell me the system isn't rigged.
Now tell me the system isn't rigged.
1
Hillary lied to the whole country when she said she didn't send classified e-mails.
"giving evasive or misleading answers"?, No. Lying.
Comey"contradicted her assertions"? No. She lied.
Which is worse, Trump lying about the quality of his school? or Hillary lying about the security of the country as the leader of the State Dept?
"giving evasive or misleading answers"?, No. Lying.
Comey"contradicted her assertions"? No. She lied.
Which is worse, Trump lying about the quality of his school? or Hillary lying about the security of the country as the leader of the State Dept?
4
Wrong. Comey absolutely did NOT say that Clinton's actions weren't criminal. Comey said that, in the opinion of the FBI, they weren't practically prosecutable (I don't agree at all with that, but that's not the point.) She committed a felony -- anyone who listened to the first part of Comey's speech heard that, and was stunned at the final recommendation.
When are you guys coming out of the tank? Ever? Does the spin machine EVER get turned off?
When are you guys coming out of the tank? Ever? Does the spin machine EVER get turned off?
3
Honestly officer, I didn't intend to speed so please don't give me a ticket.
4
Even the NYT has trouble giving Hillary a pass on this one- The "Well, at least she's better than Trump" argument may shield her through the election- but don't think for a second it will hold credence while she's in office. Hillary's colossal ego will get her in trouble again and the "better than Donald" dog won't hunt.
4
Okay so she made mistakes but not a mistake like GWBush who blew up the middle east, not a mistake like Nixon who subverted justice while hiding crimes all the time denying everything, or like the Governor of Oklahoma whose administration has "claimed to have found millions" after slashing the budget and removing over 600 jobs from state government. This too will pass and we cannot afford to have a misogynist, crazy Nazi for president in our country.
Prepare for four long miserable years of this, starting in January.
5
We live in a land where double standards are applied commonly and glibly. Depending on whom you hate and whom you wish to feel moral superiority over, the rules bend and morph. We don't really believe, as Dylan noted, "the strings in the books can't be pulled or persuaded." Of course, he didn't either. Not everyone gets treated the same; never have, never will. Comey did the Chinatown thing here with his "no crime/terrible judgment" riff, but that was just his competent lawyer side making an uneasy peace with his Republican roots. What I want to ask all these outraged Trumpsters and white folks out there is: Do we show the same outrage when black men and boys are shot down by police, and a white prosecutor stands up and explains why no charges will be brought? Oh, yeah, did I mention we have double standards?
2
I'll hold my nose and vote for HRC only because I don't want another Scalia or Thomas on the SCOTUS.
So now we're at the point where the best thing that can be said regarding HRC is that she's not Donald Trump. Our political system is failing.
4
It seems to me that there are more pressing issues in the USA that warrant coverage in the year of the election. How about the CARNAGE in Iraq? If we're talking about a double standard with respect to whether or not Hillary would be charged in the e-mail scandal, why wasn't anyone in government charged in the so-called "war on terror" that brought down a government and led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians? And why did it take yet another mass shooting to bring gun control to the fore, however briefly?
1
HRC and Trump actually have many things in common. But let's just focus on one indisputable truth:
They are both liars.
Let that sink in for a moment.
They are both liars.
Let that sink in for a moment.
1
Hillary Clinton is a felon.
Donald Trump is not.
Let THAT sink in for a moment.
Donald Trump is not.
Let THAT sink in for a moment.
1
I plan to vote for HRC, but with increasing dismay and decreasing enthusiasm.
Her repeated "mistakes"--on Iraq, desire to invade in Syria, paid speeches, the email debacle--are ceasing to be mistakes to be dismissed or forgiven, and are becoming a pattern of arrogance and poor judgement.
Warren 2020!
Her repeated "mistakes"--on Iraq, desire to invade in Syria, paid speeches, the email debacle--are ceasing to be mistakes to be dismissed or forgiven, and are becoming a pattern of arrogance and poor judgement.
Warren 2020!
2
Right. another liar who boasted of false Native American ancestry to improve her election prospects. And who enriched herself by investing in sub prime mortgage investments at the expense of her tenants. Right.
"Why cannot Hillary be honest?" ask the centrists and to the left. Your question explains why this country has been ruled by thieves and is about to elect a huckster.
Why is Hillary dishonest? Because the country is dishonest. The electorate is dishonest. Not worthy of anyone's honesty.
Because half of America is misogynistic and bigoted; yearn for a return to pre-1950s when they were (seemingly) in charge.
Honestly! Do you really think women, minorities, the disabled, and every other group other than white males got their freedom to breath freely because they were "honest?" How honest are you if asked a 100 times a day: "when did you stop beating your children, and why aren't you in jail already?"
Republicans "honestly" wants to destroy Hillary, grab power, corrupt the judiciary, set up the legislation for robbery and pollution, produce a theocratic plutocracy which supports their thievery. You want the democrats to respond to that by being "honest?"
If Republicans are bent on creating an American apartheid, the center left - with their dangerous equivocation, ambivalence, and intellectual density and moral vacuousness - is letting it happen all too willingly with faux pieties.
Of course republicans win all the time. Who wouldn't against people like you?
Kalidan
Why is Hillary dishonest? Because the country is dishonest. The electorate is dishonest. Not worthy of anyone's honesty.
Because half of America is misogynistic and bigoted; yearn for a return to pre-1950s when they were (seemingly) in charge.
Honestly! Do you really think women, minorities, the disabled, and every other group other than white males got their freedom to breath freely because they were "honest?" How honest are you if asked a 100 times a day: "when did you stop beating your children, and why aren't you in jail already?"
Republicans "honestly" wants to destroy Hillary, grab power, corrupt the judiciary, set up the legislation for robbery and pollution, produce a theocratic plutocracy which supports their thievery. You want the democrats to respond to that by being "honest?"
If Republicans are bent on creating an American apartheid, the center left - with their dangerous equivocation, ambivalence, and intellectual density and moral vacuousness - is letting it happen all too willingly with faux pieties.
Of course republicans win all the time. Who wouldn't against people like you?
Kalidan
2
The pearl clutching end of the world ranters were never going to vote for Hillary anyway.
Ever since they couldn't elect Sarah Palin, justice died, the bombs bursting in air.
Ever since they couldn't elect Sarah Palin, justice died, the bombs bursting in air.
Yesterday won't change a single vote.
Which is why this country is in the mess we're in.
Still time to make sure a Democrat is elected president. HRC will never beat Trump. 48 % of the democrat voters, picked Bernie. Polls suggest, most Independents support him, independents were unable to vote in most states. In current polls she is not beating Trump.Wake up DNC . You supported a flawed candidate.
1
Since when is "intention" necessary for prosecution? Does that mean that if I accidentally run a red light, I shouldn't have to pay the ticket? Is involuntary manslaughter no longer a crime? Apparently I was mistaken in my belief that a majority of people -- and institutions like the NY Times -- actually cared about things like justice and democracy and the rule of law.
3
Running a red light is not a felony. The penalties are normally only monetary. Of course if there is an accident or other events ensue, then it is no longer just an infraction. I am not a lawyer but I did learn something defending myself in traffic court in the Bronx.
HRC made the right decision to use her personal email. State Dept and govt email systems are compromised. Ed Snowden never got to any of her server material. Powell and Rice knew it too. Using govt servers is a pipeline to the Kremlin, or worse, the RNC. Take the hit, HRC.
1
Ok Hilary Clinton was wrong to use a private server, Has any one counted the times Donald Trump was wrong?
1
Last time I looked, Trump never endangered American foreign policy and lives with an illegal personal server. And he never ignored the pleas for more protection from a foreign ambassador that lead to the deaths of 4 Americans.
1
Just leave it be, Fred. You're making it worse!
The whole story is political from the start when the House Benghazi Committee started the inquiry to yesterday as the F.B.I. took the middle road with a shot at Clinton's future campaigning.
The F.B.I. always manipulated politics and it did again.
The F.B.I. always manipulated politics and it did again.
Hard to defend Hil here, but I will say we can easily know WHY she used a personal server: so as not to give Republicans in the house, etc, a feast of emails to dig into, take out of context and otherwise use against her, she used her private server. She obviously found it easier and used it much more than she should have. (Where the h--- was her staff on this though?)
This does speak volumes on what it takes to climb the political ladder here in the US, perhaps more so for a woman.
We do however need to put this in some context: this has absolutely nothing to do with THE POLITICAL ISSUES of the campaign; climate change, the sinking middle class, terrorism, gun laws, foreign affairs et.al.
This does speak volumes on what it takes to climb the political ladder here in the US, perhaps more so for a woman.
We do however need to put this in some context: this has absolutely nothing to do with THE POLITICAL ISSUES of the campaign; climate change, the sinking middle class, terrorism, gun laws, foreign affairs et.al.
Now the NYT editorial board can officially endorse her.
I beg the unbelievers to bear with me a moment. Imagine Thomas Jefferson and John Adams observing this election process from their celestial home. Their friendship must surely be restored; reconciled in grief.
I agree that Secretary Clinton is far and away the best candidate - at this time - but, there was a time before she became the presumptive nominee. Remember Elizabeth Warren? Bernard Sanders? Martin O'Malley?
I agree that Secretary Clinton is far and away the best candidate - at this time - but, there was a time before she became the presumptive nominee. Remember Elizabeth Warren? Bernard Sanders? Martin O'Malley?
1
Trump is probably right that the system is rigged because if it wasn't, he'd have been in jail a long time ago.
2
No surprises here, Hillary lied, was “extremely careless,” used classified material in an unclassified system, gave “misleading answers about her actions and motivations,” used bad judgement and undermined “the security culture of the State Department in general.”
All of this goes to the lack of trust voters have in Hillary. These issues, not just Trump, are her greatest adversary.
Can a tiger change its stripes? NOPE !!!
Coincidently, WikiLeaks, per Julian Assange, just released a pile of Hillary Clinton’s mails when she was Secretary of State. (See below.) Now we can expect the media to examine these and the media may end up issuing scathing indictments against Hillary contributing to her liabilities as a candidate. She is still despised by many voters.
This chapter is not yet over. Let’s see what happens.
WikiLeaks rolls out archive of over 1,200 ‘Clinton Iraq War’ emails
5 Jul, 2016
https://www.rt.com/usa/349492-wikileaks-iraq-clinton-emails/
Wikileaks Publishes 1000+ Of Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War Emails. Read Them Here
JULY 5, 2016
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-publishes-1000-...
All of this goes to the lack of trust voters have in Hillary. These issues, not just Trump, are her greatest adversary.
Can a tiger change its stripes? NOPE !!!
Coincidently, WikiLeaks, per Julian Assange, just released a pile of Hillary Clinton’s mails when she was Secretary of State. (See below.) Now we can expect the media to examine these and the media may end up issuing scathing indictments against Hillary contributing to her liabilities as a candidate. She is still despised by many voters.
This chapter is not yet over. Let’s see what happens.
WikiLeaks rolls out archive of over 1,200 ‘Clinton Iraq War’ emails
5 Jul, 2016
https://www.rt.com/usa/349492-wikileaks-iraq-clinton-emails/
Wikileaks Publishes 1000+ Of Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War Emails. Read Them Here
JULY 5, 2016
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-publishes-1000-...
3
So I really hope the FBI will now take such a well organized and all inclusiven investigation of the other one . He and his party are a little suspect of a lot worse things then Ms. C. wanting to do it her way . She is faulted on 8 lousy emails out of 1000's . Give me a break . Well Americans wanted Bush /Cheney all so much . I can easily see that other one getting the president . Or as our own real elected President Obama said we all reasonable Americans better Vote .
Being sorry isn't good enough. Where's the recognition from Mrs. Clinton that this was bad judgement and reckless behavior? Where are the comments from Mrs. Clinton that she's learned something from all of this?
3
Somehow, we have the choice between two candidates who have been embroiled in legal challenges of their own making. Both of them have made disasterous judgement calls that call into question their basic competence (people forget that even Clinton admitted fault for Benghazi, and that Trump has declared bankruptcy). Both of them have lied to the public.
Somehow we have to decide which one to make the most powerful individual in the world. In a nation of 300 million, we couldn't find anyone better?
Somehow we have to decide which one to make the most powerful individual in the world. In a nation of 300 million, we couldn't find anyone better?
1
Is anyone else tired of these "Well, nothing was MARKED classified" excuses?
Of course that was true. What Secretary of State could possibly respond to world crises if she first had to wait for some State Department classifying nerd to finish showering and combing his hair so he can look over her email traffic? It's obvious that some plainly classified material won't actually be "marked" classified when it's emailed back and forth. That doesn't mean it's not classified -- only that it's not "marked classified." Our Secretary of State should know the difference. As Comey made clear with many examples, this wasn't simply a case of "up-classifying" a bunch of emails after the fact to embarrass Secretary Clinton. Many email arguably WERE in that category, but many others plainly were "top secret" (or even higher, per Comey), without any "up-classifying" being necessary.
I can't speak for others but, as an American citizen, I feel a bit cheated by Hillary Clinton. I'd always assumed -- reasonably, I think -- that our highest foreign service officials were conducting their official business on official servers. I'd always understood that Russia, China, North Korea, Israel -- whoever -- would continually try to hack into those official servers, despite all the protections our experts might put in place. But I never thought our Secretary of State would make it easy for them by sending and receiving all of her official emails through a server located in her basement!
Of course that was true. What Secretary of State could possibly respond to world crises if she first had to wait for some State Department classifying nerd to finish showering and combing his hair so he can look over her email traffic? It's obvious that some plainly classified material won't actually be "marked" classified when it's emailed back and forth. That doesn't mean it's not classified -- only that it's not "marked classified." Our Secretary of State should know the difference. As Comey made clear with many examples, this wasn't simply a case of "up-classifying" a bunch of emails after the fact to embarrass Secretary Clinton. Many email arguably WERE in that category, but many others plainly were "top secret" (or even higher, per Comey), without any "up-classifying" being necessary.
I can't speak for others but, as an American citizen, I feel a bit cheated by Hillary Clinton. I'd always assumed -- reasonably, I think -- that our highest foreign service officials were conducting their official business on official servers. I'd always understood that Russia, China, North Korea, Israel -- whoever -- would continually try to hack into those official servers, despite all the protections our experts might put in place. But I never thought our Secretary of State would make it easy for them by sending and receiving all of her official emails through a server located in her basement!
2
There will be many discussions of the details of this investigation, but no one can deny Hillary Clinton's propensity to prevaricate. The two major party choices for president are disturbing: Clinton, who dissembles well, and Trump, who is not a viable candidate. The voters deserve better. This election screams out for a solid third party candidate.
3
Untouched in this column or by any of the commenters is Trump's response: "only more proof that the system is rigged," thereby implying that Clinton and the FBI worked hand in glove in the investigation. How dare a nominee for our highest office attempt to tear down the work of the highest law enforcement agency in the land? We do not need a GOP that constantly belittles and legitimizes every other department of our government, in this case the FBI. We need an opposition party who can accept outcomes even when they "believe" something else. If anything, they should be bold enough to question why a law enforcement officer--- after declaring there is no reason to indite-- would publicly scold the democratic nominee for POTUS.
"I haven't heard that the way she set up her communications was absolutely illegal."
Well, the FBI Director just announced that it wasn't. So that's that. I suspect most Americans agree that –– legal, shmegal –- our top foreign service officials shouldn't be sending and receiving emails on a server located in the home basement of the Secretary of State. Hard to believe that occurred, but it did. Apparently it's legal, but no less hard to believe.
Well, the FBI Director just announced that it wasn't. So that's that. I suspect most Americans agree that –– legal, shmegal –- our top foreign service officials shouldn't be sending and receiving emails on a server located in the home basement of the Secretary of State. Hard to believe that occurred, but it did. Apparently it's legal, but no less hard to believe.
I have some questions. What was the general security culture of the State Department before Mrs. Clinton became Secretary of State? Did she do something differently than her predecessors, or did this private email culture within the State Department exist before she took office?
2
For thirty years, Hillary Clinton has had right-wing extremists trying to pin all sorts of crimes on her, sometimes using the legal system to search every aspect of her life.
We’ve watched as false claims about Whitewater and the Vince Foster death have been exhaustively investigated and ultimately abandoned by her accusers, after they spent millions of tax dollars.
We’ve watched as several admittedly partisan Republican investigations tried unsuccessfully to shift the blame for Benghazi away from the military and the intelligence community and onto Mrs. Clinton.
Hillary Clinton wanted to isolate her personal and private life from the prying eyes of wild-eyed zealots, and she made the mistake of buying into the idea of a private email server in her home. It was a mistake, and she has admitted it.
The F.B.I. Director made the only sensible recommendation by not referring the matter for criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. However, before doing that, Director Comey went beyond what was needed and smeared Mrs. Clinton badly.
It seems to have been done to appease Republicans.
Donald Trump has been thrown a lifeline by Mr. Comey, and so have Republicans supporting Trump.
The only hope for our nation to avert going to the brink of disaster is that Trump and his new pals will be too dumb and too greedy to recognize the gift Mr. Comey has bestowed.
We’ve watched as false claims about Whitewater and the Vince Foster death have been exhaustively investigated and ultimately abandoned by her accusers, after they spent millions of tax dollars.
We’ve watched as several admittedly partisan Republican investigations tried unsuccessfully to shift the blame for Benghazi away from the military and the intelligence community and onto Mrs. Clinton.
Hillary Clinton wanted to isolate her personal and private life from the prying eyes of wild-eyed zealots, and she made the mistake of buying into the idea of a private email server in her home. It was a mistake, and she has admitted it.
The F.B.I. Director made the only sensible recommendation by not referring the matter for criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. However, before doing that, Director Comey went beyond what was needed and smeared Mrs. Clinton badly.
It seems to have been done to appease Republicans.
Donald Trump has been thrown a lifeline by Mr. Comey, and so have Republicans supporting Trump.
The only hope for our nation to avert going to the brink of disaster is that Trump and his new pals will be too dumb and too greedy to recognize the gift Mr. Comey has bestowed.
2
Today, Democrats celebrate their frontrunner's vindication.
But the laurels truly belong to Hillary: A liar who intentionally, continuously, (and apparently, unnecessarily) deceived both the voters and the media for almost a year; a person who lied to her co-workers, violated State Department and Executive brach policies on handling classified information; was "extremely reckless" in handling the nation's top secrets; further exposed these secrets to adverse interception when she insisted on using portable devices while traveling in countries hostile to U.S. interests.
A walking, talking avatar of Will to Power. Nietzsche got it. So does Hillary. I wonder if her supporters get it?
But the laurels truly belong to Hillary: A liar who intentionally, continuously, (and apparently, unnecessarily) deceived both the voters and the media for almost a year; a person who lied to her co-workers, violated State Department and Executive brach policies on handling classified information; was "extremely reckless" in handling the nation's top secrets; further exposed these secrets to adverse interception when she insisted on using portable devices while traveling in countries hostile to U.S. interests.
A walking, talking avatar of Will to Power. Nietzsche got it. So does Hillary. I wonder if her supporters get it?
1
We're likely to see a lot of this in November:
"... for the first time in my life I will be voting for a third party candidate..."
Certainly understandable, but keep in mind that voting for a third party candidate may elect the major-party candidate you like the least.
If a candidate gets, say, 35% of a state's votes, but that's still more than any other candidate gets in the state, the candidate gets ALL of the state's electoral votes. Hubert Humphrey won Texas in 1968 with just 41% of the vote, because Richard Nixon and George Wallace split the majority. Bill Clinton won two terms as President of the US without getting the majority either time. His Republican opponent and H. Ross Perot split the majority both times. Each time, their combined total was higher than Clinton's, but he only had to be the top single vote-getter in a state to get all of its electoral votes.
Hard to say whether many voters who disfavor both Trump and Clinton really will vote for a third-party candidate. Even harder to predict the effect of that. But voters should at least keep in mind that not voting for their favored major-party candidate -- even if he or she is merely the "lesser of two evils" -- may help to elect that "even-greater" evil.
"... for the first time in my life I will be voting for a third party candidate..."
Certainly understandable, but keep in mind that voting for a third party candidate may elect the major-party candidate you like the least.
If a candidate gets, say, 35% of a state's votes, but that's still more than any other candidate gets in the state, the candidate gets ALL of the state's electoral votes. Hubert Humphrey won Texas in 1968 with just 41% of the vote, because Richard Nixon and George Wallace split the majority. Bill Clinton won two terms as President of the US without getting the majority either time. His Republican opponent and H. Ross Perot split the majority both times. Each time, their combined total was higher than Clinton's, but he only had to be the top single vote-getter in a state to get all of its electoral votes.
Hard to say whether many voters who disfavor both Trump and Clinton really will vote for a third-party candidate. Even harder to predict the effect of that. But voters should at least keep in mind that not voting for their favored major-party candidate -- even if he or she is merely the "lesser of two evils" -- may help to elect that "even-greater" evil.
We have woken up this morning to a different and dangerous reality. In our legal system it used to be that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yesterday a new norm had been established - one is proven guilty and still presumed innocent. If one wants a criminal as the POTUS, he/she should vote for the Clintons. Yes, in plural. I will not. A good friend of mine, Michael Regev, wrote in a comment on my Facebook page: "I believe director Comey is an honest man. When he stated the conclusion he looked like a person possessed by the devil in the Exorcist movies, crying Help Me, Help Me, trying to say she is guilty as hell and shouldn't be POTUS. Even if no pressure (direct or "passive") was put on him, he knew that if she is charged, Obama, as one of her e-mail recipients might be implicated, resulting in a constitutional crisis. Too many strange coincidences happened during the past few days, which remind me of the guy who tells his father that he decided to seek a career in organized crime. And his father asks him "private sector or government"? Adding that government is better because they never go to prison." Go-d help us if the Clintons get back to the Oval Office.
1
I'd suggest that the most serious problems here have to do with:
1. Clinton's general ignorance of computers and what they do, an ignorance shared by most politicians and heads of government departments.
2. Her tendency to hit a defensive crouch at any and every opportunity. Together with doing it her way come hell or high water.
3. The total wackoism of a right wing (and regrettably, some Sanders supporters) who can't see straight when it comes to pretty much anybody of whom they just plain disapprove. This tends to turn them into self-appointed investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries--even while they make it extremely clear that they haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.
4. Our antiquated and jerry-rigged government IT systems, which apparently we're way too cheap to do anything about, however often the prob turns around and bites us in the proverbial. Or to put it another way, it's an infrastructure problem.
1. Clinton's general ignorance of computers and what they do, an ignorance shared by most politicians and heads of government departments.
2. Her tendency to hit a defensive crouch at any and every opportunity. Together with doing it her way come hell or high water.
3. The total wackoism of a right wing (and regrettably, some Sanders supporters) who can't see straight when it comes to pretty much anybody of whom they just plain disapprove. This tends to turn them into self-appointed investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries--even while they make it extremely clear that they haven't a clue as to what they're talking about.
4. Our antiquated and jerry-rigged government IT systems, which apparently we're way too cheap to do anything about, however often the prob turns around and bites us in the proverbial. Or to put it another way, it's an infrastructure problem.
1
The FBI director pointed out that Hillary Clinton could be punished in other ways than criminal prosecution. He said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.” Clinton’s security clearance could and should be revoked, if it is still in effect. If her security clearances has been deactivated, she should be denied access to classified information. If elected president, she would have access because presidents may be given access to classified information, even if they would not be able to obtain a security clearance were they not president. However, in casting a vote for Clinton, voters would know they are voting for a person who is officially not trusted to handle classified information.
2
"Officially" not trusted? The republican Comey went beyond his job of saying there were no grounds for criminal indictment to opine on the matter because he wanted to. That's not "official". And you to suggest that the maniac Trump is better would be absurd. Clinton has been hounded for things that others have done, hounded while mass murderers Bush and Cheney go on without rebuke, amazingly enough. Comey's phrasing of his opinions is to be expected from a republican partisan, which he is, as are you.
James Comey may have let Hilary Clinton escape prosecution for the caviar disregard for US Government secrecy regulations in the use of a private email server but he simply confirmed my decision to not vote for Clinton for President of the United States in November.
Since I also cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump and the Republicans so since I consider voting a civic duty that leaves me with no choice but to vote for an independent candidate for POTUS. Viable choices include the Green / Rainbow Party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, or hold out hope that Bernie Sanders will give up on trying to reform the corporatist Democratic Party and will accept Jill Stein's generous offer to run on the Green / Rainbow Party Ticket.
Since I have made the irrevocable decision that in good conscience I cannot vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party candidate (the lesser of two great evils) I will instead choose hope and change in the person of Jill Stein of the Green Rainbow Party.
I am an unenrolled (independent) voter and have been so for many years owe no loyalty to either of the two major incumbant political parties and view both as hopelessly corrupt and corporatist (wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street plutocrats and oligarchs). So loyal Democrats do not wag your finger at me and tell me of all the dangers of not voting for Hilary Clinton, I remain unpersuaded.
Since I also cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump and the Republicans so since I consider voting a civic duty that leaves me with no choice but to vote for an independent candidate for POTUS. Viable choices include the Green / Rainbow Party candidate Jill Stein or Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, or hold out hope that Bernie Sanders will give up on trying to reform the corporatist Democratic Party and will accept Jill Stein's generous offer to run on the Green / Rainbow Party Ticket.
Since I have made the irrevocable decision that in good conscience I cannot vote for either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party candidate (the lesser of two great evils) I will instead choose hope and change in the person of Jill Stein of the Green Rainbow Party.
I am an unenrolled (independent) voter and have been so for many years owe no loyalty to either of the two major incumbant political parties and view both as hopelessly corrupt and corporatist (wholly owned subsidiaries of Wall Street plutocrats and oligarchs). So loyal Democrats do not wag your finger at me and tell me of all the dangers of not voting for Hilary Clinton, I remain unpersuaded.
Greetings,
Perhaps the editorial board should read up on the case of Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura, who was prosecuted and convicted, while the FBI also stated that in this circumstance his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”
Then, ask yourselves whether or not you would have still written this piece they way you did.
The FBI director should have known better than to express a public opinion on prosecution. That transformed an investigaional summary into a political statement. He should have stopped with the facts, which were clear. Yet he chose to obfuscate the facts.
He should have answered clearly - YES or NO - his own question (quoting the FBI transcript): ...whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
The content of his own statement reveals an unequivocal "Yes". Yet he demurred.
His reputation, and that of the FBI are now tarnished beyond recoverability.
Comey should resign.
Perhaps the editorial board should read up on the case of Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura, who was prosecuted and convicted, while the FBI also stated that in this circumstance his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”
Then, ask yourselves whether or not you would have still written this piece they way you did.
The FBI director should have known better than to express a public opinion on prosecution. That transformed an investigaional summary into a political statement. He should have stopped with the facts, which were clear. Yet he chose to obfuscate the facts.
He should have answered clearly - YES or NO - his own question (quoting the FBI transcript): ...whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
The content of his own statement reveals an unequivocal "Yes". Yet he demurred.
His reputation, and that of the FBI are now tarnished beyond recoverability.
Comey should resign.
1
Hillary intentionally set up and used a personal server. She intentionally used the server for storing classified information. It is highly probable that Russia and China penetrated that server. Clearly there was intent, but I guess the .01% political elite reside under a different set of rules than the rest of us.
1
Contrary to the talking point appearing everywhere today, the FBI did not exonerate Hillary. It did not say there were no crimes.
It said a reasonable prosecutor would not indict this particular defendant for those crimes, even as it specifically warned it would indict other defendants if they did the same things.
The reason? A "reasonable prosecutor" avoids interfering with an election, especially a Presidential election. The has long been official Justice Dept "guidance."
It would take something far more to step in and change the course of an election, something like Trump's comment about shooting someone in the street.
That does NOT mean there was no crime. Comey was pretty clear there were things for which others would be indicted. He warned them, even as he did this.
The talking point is yet another campaign lie.
It said a reasonable prosecutor would not indict this particular defendant for those crimes, even as it specifically warned it would indict other defendants if they did the same things.
The reason? A "reasonable prosecutor" avoids interfering with an election, especially a Presidential election. The has long been official Justice Dept "guidance."
It would take something far more to step in and change the course of an election, something like Trump's comment about shooting someone in the street.
That does NOT mean there was no crime. Comey was pretty clear there were things for which others would be indicted. He warned them, even as he did this.
The talking point is yet another campaign lie.
She set up a private server, which Powell and Rice did not do. She didn't have permission to do this. She destroyed government documents and used a private server to evade transparency as is the publics right under the Freedom of Information Act. She is culpable and has arrounsed justifiable suspicion concerning quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation and favors for wealthy leaders of other countries. If this were only recklessness, this is enough to question her competence to run our country. I hate to think of the consequences of such arrogance.
1
What we have left for choices is dismal. Trump is a liar and incompetant.
Clinton is a liar and a money grubbing thief.
Clinton is a liar and a money grubbing thief.
Maybe....the DEMS will insist that Hillary Clinton choose an impeccably
untarnished VP...like Bernie Sanders...because...it will take a lot of Gorham
polish to cause Hillary to shine in the light of the entire GOP glaring strobe
lights of political malice...
Bernie...yes...feel not only the Bern...but the Bernie "shine"....just think about
this ...dear Editorial Board....what say you now....because "your candidate"
isn't going to "polish up" so well...before November elections...is she...
Just Do It...the alternative would be every voter might ...write in their candidate
or ...not vote...so ....I recommend a shinning knight in silver armor ...
and chivalry is seldom seen anymore...and I say there should be a revival of
chivalry....clink and clank...it is such a nice image....that is one of trust and
honor in a knight ....so I think if Bernie were an English subject Queen Elizabeth II would definitely dub him Sir Sanders....really think so..and so
should you....so get off your sacred duffs and promote Bernie..Please !!!
untarnished VP...like Bernie Sanders...because...it will take a lot of Gorham
polish to cause Hillary to shine in the light of the entire GOP glaring strobe
lights of political malice...
Bernie...yes...feel not only the Bern...but the Bernie "shine"....just think about
this ...dear Editorial Board....what say you now....because "your candidate"
isn't going to "polish up" so well...before November elections...is she...
Just Do It...the alternative would be every voter might ...write in their candidate
or ...not vote...so ....I recommend a shinning knight in silver armor ...
and chivalry is seldom seen anymore...and I say there should be a revival of
chivalry....clink and clank...it is such a nice image....that is one of trust and
honor in a knight ....so I think if Bernie were an English subject Queen Elizabeth II would definitely dub him Sir Sanders....really think so..and so
should you....so get off your sacred duffs and promote Bernie..Please !!!
I am confused. I also understood that other SOSs did the same thing, such as Colin Powell. Will Comey now go after him for being reckless? Or is this just reserved for Clinton?
1
This is going to change no one's mind. It's too complicated for the dopes, whose lives are lived through "reality" shows -- which have absolutely no basis in reality. "I Love Lucy" has more reality in it than whatever garbage the networks call reality now. I refuse to vote for a racist, dishonest, weak-willed, narcissistic bully whose political stance is more suited for a grade-school playground and -- as far as we know -- hasn't paid a dime in income taxes in years. Why is he so afraid to reveal his income tax forms. Duhhhhhh. But if you're going to vote for the Presumptive GOP Nominee, go right ahead. It only confirms my low opinion of Republican voters who want to go back to 1916 to "Make This Country Great Again."
The Hillary Clinton email case has been beyond comprehension. There never was any evidence to suggest that she had endangered, deliberately or not, the security of our nation. The best the FBI director has is to suggest that her server “might have been hacked”!! We do know that the premier security agency in our country, the NSA, employed contractors, one of whom did not need to be HACKED: he divulged every “TOP SECRET” message in the system. Is the NSA under investigation?
The opponents of the Secretary, including Comey, could if they wanted to, criticize her actions as Secretary of State where she dealt with up to 180 countries and innumerable crises that required the same innumerable emails. From all reports she handled all those thousands of crises competently. A few bad conclusions that might have been costly, would deserve more critical investigation than a “Private Server”!! For that matter, would the Bush/Cheney decision on Iraq deserve an indictment as required by Ryan et al??
As for Petraeus, who knowingly passed state secrets to his lover, the Republicans would love to have him as their Presidential candidate, regardless of Server!
The opponents of the Secretary, including Comey, could if they wanted to, criticize her actions as Secretary of State where she dealt with up to 180 countries and innumerable crises that required the same innumerable emails. From all reports she handled all those thousands of crises competently. A few bad conclusions that might have been costly, would deserve more critical investigation than a “Private Server”!! For that matter, would the Bush/Cheney decision on Iraq deserve an indictment as required by Ryan et al??
As for Petraeus, who knowingly passed state secrets to his lover, the Republicans would love to have him as their Presidential candidate, regardless of Server!
1
The email issue needs to be seen in the context of the really clear choice between Clinton and Trump--here's a handy summary read by 2,300 so far https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
A poetic result for a candidate who has always seemed to be a better lawyer than politician . . .
1
She is going to be the next POTUS. But will we even have a country left after four years of her?
This is "House of Cards", for real.
1
Where is the investigation into Colin Powell and Condi Rice's same practice of using private servers?
Why did Comey state that hackers might have hacked her email when they found no evidence of it? Both the Pentagon and IRS systems have been hacked into and there is no evidence that HRC's server was ever hacked. Maybe her private servers were more secure in that they were under the radar and not in the cross hairs of hackers?
While Trump and others are claiming the fix was in, system is rigged, etc- I feel this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot and there is not one instance of this email issue having one negative effect on the running of the State Dept- other than the political controversy. If Comey was indeed even handed, he would also have extended this year long investigation to include Powell and Rice. Why just HRC?
As Bernie Sanders stated, I am sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's emails. This has nothing to do with solving the grave problems we face and is just another manufactured distraction from the real issues we need to be discussing during this election season.
Why did Comey state that hackers might have hacked her email when they found no evidence of it? Both the Pentagon and IRS systems have been hacked into and there is no evidence that HRC's server was ever hacked. Maybe her private servers were more secure in that they were under the radar and not in the cross hairs of hackers?
While Trump and others are claiming the fix was in, system is rigged, etc- I feel this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot and there is not one instance of this email issue having one negative effect on the running of the State Dept- other than the political controversy. If Comey was indeed even handed, he would also have extended this year long investigation to include Powell and Rice. Why just HRC?
As Bernie Sanders stated, I am sick and tired of hearing about Hillary's emails. This has nothing to do with solving the grave problems we face and is just another manufactured distraction from the real issues we need to be discussing during this election season.
2
It comes down to this - Trump or Clinton? Who do you want in the Oval Office to protect this country?
1
I assume Director Comey learned the same thing I did when he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney: if you want to accuse someone, put it in an indictment. If the evidence is insufficient, close the case and remain silent. Don't have a press conference to discuss snippets of evidence in a case you can't prove and then offer your opinions about what the evidence means. The reason for that rule is obvious: a person who is accused must have the right to defend herself in a court of law and have a jury find the facts. Violating it would have been cause for discipline, if not firing.
According to Director Comey's remarks, his goal was to defend the integrity of his investigation. For those who know the rules, it seems like he wanted to influence an election.
According to Director Comey's remarks, his goal was to defend the integrity of his investigation. For those who know the rules, it seems like he wanted to influence an election.
2
Thank you, my take as well. He simply should have said: after reviewing hundreds of thousands of emails, we found a few that were mishandled but there has been nothing illegal...end of story. His editorial and admonishment was totally judgmental and inappropriate.
Lost in the debate about national security implications is the fact that Clinton used her private email account to dodge federal record keeping laws, including the Freedom of Information Act. While it's cumbersome to use and federal agencies are given wide latitude about documents they can exclude from public access, FOIA is still a critical mechanism for ensuring transparency and accountability among our public officials.
I will certainly vote for Clinton, but I do so with grave doubts about her honesty and trustworthiness.
I will certainly vote for Clinton, but I do so with grave doubts about her honesty and trustworthiness.
Our faith in the law, the constitution, and our society are now clearly shattered. People cheering for Hillary are consumed by the ends justifies the means. The brazen acts of deception and lies have reached a boiling point. But a highly creative interpretation of the law has been taken by Mr. Comey. This is reminiscent of Judge Roberts decision on Obamacare. In Washington the powerful do not have to follow the laws they are only accountable in November. Democratic voters have a choice in Hillary that brings to mind that Rome is burning.
1
Frankly, though I'm a lawyer, I couldn't care less whether Clinton broke some law here. What does concern me is that the highest foreign-service official in my country conducted her official business for four years on a private email server that could be hacked by some bored 14-year old kid from a laptop in his bedroom. I have almost no doubt that some bad actor did hack her server.
I had no idea that was even possible, much less that someone would choose to do it. I'd had this belief – reasonable, I'd thought, but apparently naive – that our highest foreign service officials conducted their official business on official computer systems that were carefully protected from computer snoops by sophisticate experts. Didn't you think that too? To learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't even have a State Department email address was shocking and disappointing, regardless of whether she broke any law.
I had no idea that was even possible, much less that someone would choose to do it. I'd had this belief – reasonable, I'd thought, but apparently naive – that our highest foreign service officials conducted their official business on official computer systems that were carefully protected from computer snoops by sophisticate experts. Didn't you think that too? To learn that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't even have a State Department email address was shocking and disappointing, regardless of whether she broke any law.
1
What? Do you really think the government server can't be hacked? Hundreds of thousands of emails and only a few were mishandled. That's it. And, context matters we don't know what they found to be "sensitive". Remember the FBI retroactively "classified" 2000 emails. They just had to justify a year of work and millions of dollars spent. Comey said clearly... "the evidence is not there, any legal action would be inappropriate".
If Hillary Clinton is guilty of anything it is political vacuity. She needs people around her to advise her on avoiding political traps instead of always pretending that she knows best.. Apparently none of her missteps in the email flap that have been probed and splashed into public discourse for over a year have led to any compromise of national security. There were others in vital national positions guilty of the same careless behavior. Lacking a rational platform and a rational candidate, Republicans will flog Clinton with this in the most hyperbolic terms hoping they can scare voters into the world according to Trump.
Hundreds of thousands of emails and a few were mishandled...that's all they got? Comey's statements should have simply been, a few emails were mishandled, an indictment would be inappropriate-- end of story. Instead, Comey editorialized and in the process politicized this situation. So, while admonishing Mrs. Clinton, Comey he should have also mentioned that Hillary's predecessors had set precedent by setting up private servers; she followed an already established practice. To suggest that Mrs. Clinton could have been hacked in hostile territory is over dramatizing the situation. Guess what... the government server could have been hacked too. He took advantage and provided fodder for the press and his Republican party. I think his statements were out of bounds.
1
I get the feeling that many people - myself included - will look back on this presidential election with regret, regardless of who wins in November. Trump vs. Clinton (or even Sanders, who also comes with too much baggage, albeit of a different sort) is as good an argument as any that it is time to do away with the current system of primaries/caucuses and start over with a better way to choose presidential candidates.
1
There has long been an inter-agency dispute between the State Department, on the one hand, and the CIA and FBI, on the other, over security issues. State has long practiced a more relaxed regime. But in his scathing condemnation of Hillary Clinton, Director Comey makes only passing reference to “the security culture of the State Department in general, and ... to the use of unclassified email systems in particular," as if State's culture had nothing to do with Clinton's email server. Nor does Comey make any reference to the clear failure of State Department civil servants. Any new senior appointee necessarily must depend in the initial weeks of his or her term for guidance on the existing civil service professionals in the agency. Finally, Comey makes no references to the practices of any of Clinton's predecessors, which would have put Clinton's practice in some context other than "reckless."
In sum, Director Comey errs in heaping all of the burden on Clinton, while skating so lightly over State's security culture.
And in so erring, for all his vaunted integrity, Comey gives aid and comfort to that legion of partisan character assassins who have targeted Hillary Clinton for over thirty years.
In sum, Director Comey errs in heaping all of the burden on Clinton, while skating so lightly over State's security culture.
And in so erring, for all his vaunted integrity, Comey gives aid and comfort to that legion of partisan character assassins who have targeted Hillary Clinton for over thirty years.
1
The report criticizes Clinton's careless handling of her email which should have been handled through a classified server to have been handled carefully. It seems to be a sound conclusion. Security for any email that traverses public communications networks is not strong enough to prevent unwelcome interceptions unless they are strongly encrypted. But emails through government secured means can also be hacked, as Mr. Snowden revealed, so even the approved secure procedures are not without risks. Clinton will not do this again and those in high office will have learned the lesson, too.
This is what I know: for those of us who work in government, who have high security clearance and yet are low-level employees, "extreme recklessness" would in fact mean "gross negligence." Consequently, under similar circumstances not only would we be fired, but we would also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Thus, the politics of this event is not restricted to the upcoming elections; it also touches upon labor politics within government and the unequal distribution of power between different government employees (eg, appointed vs. career). And none of this, by the way, is lost on the vast majority of government workers who must follow the rules -- and will gladly continue to do so since the reason for the rules are clear: to safeguard our countrywomen and men.
1
The media has to bear some responsibility for the madness of this campaign. Any misstep of Secretary Clinton's is magnified, dissected and beaten to death. Donald Trump, a proven liar, a businessman who pronounces that his bankruptcies were good business, an intolerant, name-calling racist and an inarticulate, cringe-worthy speech maker is actually a viable candidate. More Republican-fueled investigations where there is no place for a sense of fairness will take place wasting the taxpayer's money.
1
It seems that the items were not "marked" as classified even if they contained classified material. That seems like an important distinction. It also seemed inappropriate for the FBI director to make accusations and judgments about a citizen with no formal way for that citizen to answer the charges. The charges should either have been made or not. Or recommendations passed on to the State Department--and her.
2
Well I'm still enthusiastically supporting her. She made a bad decision, one that apparently fit right in with the sloppy State Department handling of emails.
So now I have to balance a supremely qualified candidate, who made a fairly serious mistake against; an ignorant pathological liar who can't stop his constant, disqualifying bigotry from tainting everything he touches. A person with extensive knowledge of the world vs. one who praises foreign dictators for their "strength" while vowing to commit war crimes.
Hmmm, wonder which one will do a better job? I'm pretty sure that the U.S. public can see the options and make the right choice.
So now I have to balance a supremely qualified candidate, who made a fairly serious mistake against; an ignorant pathological liar who can't stop his constant, disqualifying bigotry from tainting everything he touches. A person with extensive knowledge of the world vs. one who praises foreign dictators for their "strength" while vowing to commit war crimes.
Hmmm, wonder which one will do a better job? I'm pretty sure that the U.S. public can see the options and make the right choice.
1
Clinton displayed bad judgment in using a private email server but there is no evidence of direct harm to the US. Given her age and knowledge of IT issues, she may not have even realized the technicalities of how servers work. A little perspective on this issue could go a long way. It is somewhat ironic that this controversy has erupted in the same week as the release of the report on Britain's participation in the Iraq War. That report highlighted the lies, fabricated evidence and pompous ignorance of G W Bush, and his utterly reckless, and likely criminal, march into a senseless war. His rash actions killed hundreds of thousands of people and set off repercussions that have destabilized the world and given rise to ISIS. The scale of death and destruction from Bush's 'personal vendetta' war is hard to even fathom. Where are the multi-million dollar Congressional investigations into that debacle?
Given recent history, the choice between Clinton and Trump should not be influenced by this issue. How could anyone think that Clinton's actions justify putting Trump in the Oval Office? He is another overly confident, bellicose macho man who cares nothing for facts and evidence. His thin skin and belligerence could easily take the US into another senseless war. Judgment issues? Give me Clinton over Trump any time.
Given recent history, the choice between Clinton and Trump should not be influenced by this issue. How could anyone think that Clinton's actions justify putting Trump in the Oval Office? He is another overly confident, bellicose macho man who cares nothing for facts and evidence. His thin skin and belligerence could easily take the US into another senseless war. Judgment issues? Give me Clinton over Trump any time.
1
Memo: To All Federal Employees
Based on the FBI’s recent finding that the use of a private email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to send, receive, and store classified information and materials was only minimally careless, that from this point forward all Federal Government employees are encouraged and should feel free to; send, receive, store, and permanently delete any and all classified materials you may deal with on your own private email server, laptop or other electronic devices. Furthermore as a Federal employee you should also no longer feel legally or morally obligated to utilize the existing secure government email servers and electronic devices, if said use of such devices, might inconvenience you in any way as you carry out your official duties and sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Based on the FBI’s recent finding that the use of a private email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to send, receive, and store classified information and materials was only minimally careless, that from this point forward all Federal Government employees are encouraged and should feel free to; send, receive, store, and permanently delete any and all classified materials you may deal with on your own private email server, laptop or other electronic devices. Furthermore as a Federal employee you should also no longer feel legally or morally obligated to utilize the existing secure government email servers and electronic devices, if said use of such devices, might inconvenience you in any way as you carry out your official duties and sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
1
Comey knew he would never win a legal case against Clinton. If she were indicted and then acquitted in court, Comey would have gone down as a terrible FBI Director because he would have destroyed the Presidential election process while losing the case in court. So what did he do instead? He tried to weaken Hillary as much a possible without a trial. Unlike others, I do not hold Comey up as some kind of demigod. I think he is a Republican partisan who did his best to hurt Hillary. Much a what he said was legal speak. What exactly does it mean when he says that 110 emails were determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were either sent or received by Hillary? Does that mean the emails were marked as classified? And how many of these emails were actually sent, rather than received, by Hillary. Once the DOJ makes its final determination, I am sure that Hillary will offer a strong rebuttal of Comey's negative partisan statements. The media needs to get its act together and start examining Comey's statements and his evidence more carefully.
1
"How widespread is the government's use of the internet for official, sensitive business? Or was this just about Hillary?"
Of course the government uses the Internet "for official, sensitive business." But they use protected servers when emailing top secret information between themselves, not some private server located in one of their basements.
I really don't think this is "about Hillary." Anybody else would have been treated the same way. She claims her predecessors did the same thing, but that's been pretty much debunked now. Rice and Albright both say they didn't even use email for official business, contrary to what Clinton assert. As for Powell, he had an AOL address which he often used, but claims he always used his official State Department email address for sensitive material. Hillary Clinton didn't even have an official State Department email address. She used the private server in her basement for everything.
If this hadn't actually happened, would you believe it was even possible?
Of course the government uses the Internet "for official, sensitive business." But they use protected servers when emailing top secret information between themselves, not some private server located in one of their basements.
I really don't think this is "about Hillary." Anybody else would have been treated the same way. She claims her predecessors did the same thing, but that's been pretty much debunked now. Rice and Albright both say they didn't even use email for official business, contrary to what Clinton assert. As for Powell, he had an AOL address which he often used, but claims he always used his official State Department email address for sensitive material. Hillary Clinton didn't even have an official State Department email address. She used the private server in her basement for everything.
If this hadn't actually happened, would you believe it was even possible?
1
Sorry, but the conclusion drawn by the FBI does not make sense to me. I quote: "Second, prosecutions of similar cases in the past have relied on some combination of elements that were missing in this case: the intentional mishandling of classified information, indications of disloyalty to the United States, and efforts to obstruct justice."
Did she intentionally use a private email service, which was against policy? Yes she did, so to me that is intentional mishandling.
Did she intentionally use a private email service, which was against policy? Yes she did, so to me that is intentional mishandling.
1
What Comey didn't say and which you ignore is that all of State classified, sensitive business was done over classified servers. Dwelling on the unclassified system is just an exercise in Information Awareness. Telephone conversations and personal conversations among government workers probably frequently can be found to have some aspect of classified in them. We don't want it, we try to stop it but it happens, and so it is with unclass e-mail. Analyze the e-mail trails of other government agencies and you'll see the same spillage that occurred at State. And lets remember this Classifying information is an industry and we over classify probably up to 50% of government information.
Emails of any kind are not a good way of handling sensitive information. Every doctor knows that you are not allowed to send confidential patient information over the open internet. Whose job was it to provide a secretary of state with effective and secure means of communication? We know that government systems have been hacked-- using a government system instead of a private system does not fully protect the information. Perhaps the FBI should provide an expert, constructive solution to this problem, rather than for years ignoring a situation that was no secret and then criticizing public officials. I don't want my secretary of state to be distracted by a problem that should have been solved FOR her.
19
I agree wholeheartedly. It is very worrisome that not a single employee anywhere in our government ever thought of simple discussions with the governmental agencies concerned with email security, to clarify what they understood the email/email server rules are.
But of course, a couple of hours of discussions and a few facts would have left the Trey Gowdy Show's sponsors without a way to keep their lucrative Benghazi franchise in operation. And a clarifying discussion among adults wouldn't have yielded the indictment they have spent so much time and so much of our money trying to construct out of fantasies and accusations.
But of course, a couple of hours of discussions and a few facts would have left the Trey Gowdy Show's sponsors without a way to keep their lucrative Benghazi franchise in operation. And a clarifying discussion among adults wouldn't have yielded the indictment they have spent so much time and so much of our money trying to construct out of fantasies and accusations.
3
Secretary Clinton had a private network constructed for her own use--a parallel universe, if you will. This required an investment not only of money, but also of planning about the origin, storage, maintenance, and disposal of information on the network.
Using the private network reflected a conscious choice to bypass the existing State Department system. In practical fact, this subverted the State Department's efforts--however imperfect--to protect vital information from misuse.
I don't see this conduct as "carelessness," extreme or otherwise. It was an act of deliberation. The FBI tells us that it does not meet the threshold of illegality. The Editorial Board concludes its article with this:
"If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment."
I'm not sure what this means. But I hope that Secretary Clinton does make this demonstration. The threshold that must now be met, at least for me, is not legality, but credibility.
Using the private network reflected a conscious choice to bypass the existing State Department system. In practical fact, this subverted the State Department's efforts--however imperfect--to protect vital information from misuse.
I don't see this conduct as "carelessness," extreme or otherwise. It was an act of deliberation. The FBI tells us that it does not meet the threshold of illegality. The Editorial Board concludes its article with this:
"If there was ever a time that Mrs. Clinton needed to demonstrate that she understands the forthrightness demanded of those who hold the nation’s highest office, this is that moment."
I'm not sure what this means. But I hope that Secretary Clinton does make this demonstration. The threshold that must now be met, at least for me, is not legality, but credibility.
43
And, what say you of her previous peers: Rice, Powell and many others who set this email server precedent?
Gee, no outpouring of public support for Mrs. Clinton from our foreign Allies, the foreign diplomatic corps, and former State Department co-workers, claiming that they would trust emailing their secrets to her? It's a puzzlement. President Obama, First Lady Michelle and VP Joe Biden must also be scratching their heads at the roar of the silence from our friends abroad. Tsk, tsk, and after all the countries Mrs. Clinton visited - wasn't it 140 or so? - personally greeting all the world's leaders, including many of them donors to her Foundation - and not one offers to publicly proclaim that he or she has no problem emailing their secrets to her. What gratitude!
3
Yes, ignorance of the law is an excuse for Hillary's carelessness and breaking of the law according to FBI and NY Times. We can trust all of the above to be influenced by the powerbrokers who are running this country. It is time to accept or reject greed and corruption. It is time to separate ourselves from Republicans and Democrats by throwing them out, throw them all out.
5
The ignorance, and display of it, of Donald Trump is far more important than Hillary's "ignorance of the law"!
Clinton will NEVER understand the "FORTHRIGHTNESS DEMANDED OF THOSE WHO HOLD THE NATIONS HIGHEST OFFICE" because she believes she is ABOVE the rule of law. Your support of her only makes her feel more entitled to the special status she believes she has earned.
It is now clear to all that Clinton LIED and subjected this Nation to another episode of bad behavior that goes unpunished. ASdd this to the long list of criminal behavior that went unpunished (start with Whitewater and keep going...). Yet, the NY TIMES will strongly endorse her for President.
It is now clear to all that Clinton LIED and subjected this Nation to another episode of bad behavior that goes unpunished. ASdd this to the long list of criminal behavior that went unpunished (start with Whitewater and keep going...). Yet, the NY TIMES will strongly endorse her for President.
4
Hillary has been investigated and vetted more than any person in the United States. Indeed, the Republicans have done everything in their power to try to bring her down. Although she has made mistakes in her career--as many of us have done-- the difference is that she is highly visible and subject to more scrutiny than you average citizen. Yet, she stays on the front lines and continues to fight the good fight. I respect her dedication, her tenacity and her ability to shake off the hate and disdain that so many people have and that she simply does not deserve. She has been a consummate servant of the people and we should all be grateful for her personal and political contributions to our country.
What would have prevented anyone, from the president on down, having received an email from Secretary Clinton's private server, from calling the FBI and saying, "Mrs. Clinton seems to need some help with securing her communications. Maybe you guys could send someone over to the State Department to give her some help."
2
At this point, if it weren't for the horror named Trump, Hillary wouldn't have a prayer. How ever did we come to this pass?
4
And "by giving evasive and misleading answers," do you mean "lying"?
4
As usual, Trump undermines his own position when accusing the FBI and Justice Department of rigging the system. Then again, as a former casino owner and bankruptcy gamer, he does know something about rigged systems.
1
Republicans delete > 22 million emails and used the private RNC servers during most of Bush's administration.
And to some, it's like it never happened.
It's amazing what people can forget when it suits their interest to forget.
And to some, it's like it never happened.
It's amazing what people can forget when it suits their interest to forget.
3
Comey seems to be saying two things in his statement, 'My bosses will not let me bring charges against HRC", "However, if I could have, these are the reasons why HRC is guilty."
2
Who died and made Comey a judge.If there is no case that's all that needs to be said.After a year there is no case
As always, A for sophistry from The Times.
2
The FBI Chief walked the press conference attendees through a litany of mistakes, bad policy and/or procedures, and refuted most of what Mrs. Clinton has claimed in most of her public statements over the past 4 years. It might have been an opening argument in a court case, were there to be a court case. The critical statements he made in determining his recommendation not to prosecute were that (1) under "normal" circumstances, her behavior would be considered reckless and criminally negligent (i.e. when the accused is also a former First Lady, Secretary of State, and current, leading Presidential candidate, her political celebrity status makes her case something extra-ordinary... or not "normal") ; and (2) seeing that "successfully" trying Mrs. Clinton is not very likely (since she is, as a celebrity politician, not very likely to get convicted of anything), he determined that charges should not be brought against her.
She is not exonerated. She is not innocent. She is lucky to be rich, famous, and as extremely connected as she is at this very moment.
The mountain of evidence is damning, and Director Comey didn't pull punches. Those who believe Mrs. Clinton is innocent likely believe in fairy tales with happy endings, Santa Clause, and that OJ Simpson is innocent. too.
Yet, I lose no sleep or moment of breath hearing the she is miraculously not going to be tried. Shocking? Not really. As I have previously stated several times, the big winner this year is Cynicism.
She is not exonerated. She is not innocent. She is lucky to be rich, famous, and as extremely connected as she is at this very moment.
The mountain of evidence is damning, and Director Comey didn't pull punches. Those who believe Mrs. Clinton is innocent likely believe in fairy tales with happy endings, Santa Clause, and that OJ Simpson is innocent. too.
Yet, I lose no sleep or moment of breath hearing the she is miraculously not going to be tried. Shocking? Not really. As I have previously stated several times, the big winner this year is Cynicism.
12
I'm sorry, but you do not keep a private server in your home to do the taxpayer's business. And you don't run for President not knowing how wrong this is, so don't give me this "poor judgment" thing. She knew what she was doing. And you don't have a former state department employee set the thing up and then plead the fifth. And you don't have a presidential candidate this remiss about technology - Did you wipe the server? "Like with a cloth." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2OJwsit0WY C'mon, New York Times, give me a break.
8
To Hillary supporters who are again excusing her bad actions as a witch hunt the D.O.J. undertook "because she's being held to a different standard because she's a woman" - get over yourselves.
I say this as a woman & a feminist who's continually disgusted when Hillary's terrible judgement is excused by claims of misogyny. This isn't about her gender. It's about her character.
This reminds me of the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings when his harassment of Anita Hill & other colleagues while OEO Chairman came to light. At this point, nobody believes Thomas' assertions he didn't sexually harass Anita Hill. But he skated on it by claiming the hearings were "a high tech lynching" - a sleazy political calculation Thomas used to silence his opponents rather than be accused of sandbagging an African American.
Look what a lousy Supreme Court Justice Thomas is. This is what happens when incompetent people use race or gender to silence those who question their judgement/competence.
Hillary supporters should seriously question whether they want false proclamations about gender discrimination to be the gold standard for evaluating whether any woman is fit for public office.
This is a dangerous road. It doesn't serve us well as women when other women use gender to excuse bad judgement.
Women remain in a weakened position whenever their actions are judged by their gender instead of their competence.
I cry foul on this crass misuse of feminism.
I say this as a woman & a feminist who's continually disgusted when Hillary's terrible judgement is excused by claims of misogyny. This isn't about her gender. It's about her character.
This reminds me of the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings when his harassment of Anita Hill & other colleagues while OEO Chairman came to light. At this point, nobody believes Thomas' assertions he didn't sexually harass Anita Hill. But he skated on it by claiming the hearings were "a high tech lynching" - a sleazy political calculation Thomas used to silence his opponents rather than be accused of sandbagging an African American.
Look what a lousy Supreme Court Justice Thomas is. This is what happens when incompetent people use race or gender to silence those who question their judgement/competence.
Hillary supporters should seriously question whether they want false proclamations about gender discrimination to be the gold standard for evaluating whether any woman is fit for public office.
This is a dangerous road. It doesn't serve us well as women when other women use gender to excuse bad judgement.
Women remain in a weakened position whenever their actions are judged by their gender instead of their competence.
I cry foul on this crass misuse of feminism.
8
Still, the elephant in the room (so to speak and not in a political sense) that is not being discussed is that Clinton contrived this set up to keep "personal" information private. Not necessarily to keep private matters of national security which are just collateral damage, but specifically intended to evade any future FOIA requests.
There are still questions in my mind about "pay for play" that have not been addressed with any clarity. Exactly who made "donations" to the atypically structured Clinton Foundation and to what effect over-the-top time she was SOS? And what parties were giving Clinton "advice" which could lead to improving their own financial holdings?
Call it anything you like, I say it still stinks and I still think Clinton cannot be trusted.
There are still questions in my mind about "pay for play" that have not been addressed with any clarity. Exactly who made "donations" to the atypically structured Clinton Foundation and to what effect over-the-top time she was SOS? And what parties were giving Clinton "advice" which could lead to improving their own financial holdings?
Call it anything you like, I say it still stinks and I still think Clinton cannot be trusted.
3
It seems that many, many high ranking government officials have used private email accounts but Mrs. Clinton is the only one who has been investigated and judged for it. It also seems that part of the reason for this is that the government communications infrastructure is outdated and slow, completely out of step with the high speed demands of today's world. If this is such a vital issue, (and indeed I think everyone would agree it is), let this be a moment where both parties do some brainstorming about how to fix the problem and Republicans in Congress put their money where their mouths are and pony up the funds to do it.
4
Whatever one feels about what HC did, there's no dispute that her top aides knew it was going on but didn't press her seriously to stop. One State Department employee who spoke up was told by Hillary's aides to back off.
Many powerful people surround themselves with "yes men" (or "yes women"). But HC seems to have gone a bit overboard in doing so. If she's elected, it's fair to presume she'll do the same in the Oval Office. Trump might well do the same, but that won't excuse HC.