U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No prosecutor would ever think to bring this case because you have to prove she was lying, which means she intentionally stated falsehoods. Given it's 0.3% of the emails (113/35000), it's almost impossible to prove that she lied. If they had anything to say she lied or intentionally misled, they would have mentioned it in the FBI report.

I agree no prosecutor would.  I was thinking that Congress could try her for perjury the way they did Bill Clinton, but then I realized they were impeaching him on the charge of perjury, which is a different thing.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

2 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Actually walking back a bit - when did Clinton testify to Congress about her email server?

It came up in a Benghazi hearing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee.html?_r=0

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Actually walking back a bit - when did Clinton testify to Congress about her email server?

I assume that's a reference to 11 hour Congressional hearing. 

[Kalbear]

Hmm. Would have to read the transcript but from the article in the NY times there would be potential perjury there, though as mexal says it is likely easy to defend. 

[davos]

Basically, HRC did some dumb things.  While the possibility exists that she may have made some incorrect statements under oath, it appears likely that this was an oversight rather than intentional deception ( or at least that defense is readily available and would be very hard to convincingly disprove).  HRC 

Yes, what she did showed poor judgement.  If this was any other SoS, though, the odds that this would have been more than a minor issue with a short life-span in the public eye are almost non-existent.  It would have made news on and off for a bit, some hearings would have been held leading no-where except possibly to some revisions of the current rules so this situation wouldn't happen again.  Since it was HRC, we have had to live through several years of controversy, hearings, and investigation.  I do not like either HRC or Bill Clinton, but the long history of those who oppose them using public resources and treasure to try to destroy has long gotten very old.  

[lokisnow]

Today's Fbi conference basically validates the "Veep" theory of DC as being the correct and accurate portrayal of DC.  Ain't no west wing idealism. Ain't no house of cards vast and nefarious mwahaha conspiracy planning. Just veep type of carelessness and dumbfuckery.

[Fez]

31 minutes ago, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

It came up in a Benghazi hearing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee.html?_r=0

Was she under oath?

Anyway, the Washington Post has the full transcript if anyone wants to give it a read.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Was she under oath?

Anyway, the Washington Post has the full transcript if anyone wants to give it a read.

The transcript indicates that she was sworn in.

10 minutes ago, davos said:

Yes, what she did showed poor judgement.  If this was any other SoS, though, the odds that this would have been more than a minor issue with a short life-span in the public eye are almost non-existent.  It would have made news on and off for a bit, some hearings would have been held leading no-where except possibly to some revisions of the current rules so this situation wouldn't happen again.  Since it was HRC, we have had to live through several years of controversy, hearings, and investigation.  I do not like either HRC or Bill Clinton, but the long history of those who oppose them using public resources and treasure to try to destroy has long gotten very old.  

I'm not sure I agree that no other Secretary of State would be treated that way.  If Clinton weren't running for President this wouldn't have become an issue.  Any former Secretary of State that goes on to run for President is going to have their record scrutinized. Any politician that runs for President has their record scrutinized, often for things that happened decades ago before public life, let alone during the current presidential administration.

[Jace, Extat]

On 7/5/2016 at 3:25 PM, lokisnow said:

Today's Fbi conference basically validates the "Veep" theory of DC as being the correct and accurate portrayal of DC.  Ain't no west wing idealism. Ain't no house of cards vast and nefarious mwahaha conspiracy planning. Just veep type of carelessness and dumbfuckery.

Yeah, I buy into this train of thought as well. It's probably really nice to imagine a council of doom fixing the elections and plucking at the strings of America. But the truth is that some people have a lot of money to badger some people who have a lot of authority into sometimes doing something. They're all people. Some are good, some are bad, a few are terrible, and they've all made mistakes, compromised, and done dumb shit. The sad truth is that there is no conspiracy, no one gives a fuck.

[Fez]

30 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Today's Fbi conference basically validates the "Veep" theory of DC as being the correct and accurate portrayal of DC.  Ain't no west wing idealism. Ain't no house of cards vast and nefarious mwahaha conspiracy planning. Just veep type of carelessness and dumbfuckery.

I've lived and worked in the DC area for eight years now and have been saying this for years; and yet people continue to try to tell me its more like House of Cards.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

45 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Today's Fbi conference basically validates the "Veep" theory of DC as being the correct and accurate portrayal of DC.  Ain't no west wing idealism. Ain't no house of cards vast and nefarious mwahaha conspiracy planning. Just veep type of carelessness and dumbfuckery.

I once witnessed a senior staffer accidentally shoot a U.S. Senator in the face with a nerf gun in her office. "Veep" is more fact than fiction. 

19 minutes ago, Fez said:

I've lived and worked in the DC area for eight years now and have been saying this for years; and yet people continue to try to tell me its more like House of Cards.

To be fair, the Dick Cheney has a lot of House of Cards in him. I'd strongly encourage all of you to watch "The World According to Dick Cheney."

[Kalbear]

Reading the transcript it seems clear that she used the word 'classified', which turns out to be incorrect - though I'd have to see the evidence Comey had to make any further sense of it. 

Quote

 

JORDAN:  Transparent. I -- how -- what's the relevance to protecting from (ph) classified information?

CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received. And I want to respond...

JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used "marked". That's the one -- that's what you -- you used the revised statement there.

CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many -- many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department... JORDAN: (inaudible) one more question (inaudible).

 

That's an incorrect statement per Comey, but it's also likely to be the case that you could simply claim it to be in error rather than deliberate, and there was no sign of it being deliberate.

That said, there's also no sign of anything being marked Secret or Top Secret, so @Bold Barry Whitebeardis still incorrect in that assessment or statement both there and in Comey's statement. 

It makes me a bit sad to think that Clinton is this clueless with respect to email, but it's also totally plausible. And as I've said elsewhere, if her primary job was to handle email and manage email servers I'd be really worried.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, davos said:

Basically, HRC did some dumb things.  While the possibility exists that she may have made some incorrect statements under oath, it appears likely that this was an oversight rather than intentional deception ( or at least that defense is readily available and would be very hard to convincingly disprove).  HRC 

Yes, what she did showed poor judgement.  If this was any other SoS, though, the odds that this would have been more than a minor issue with a short life-span in the public eye are almost non-existent.  It would have made news on and off for a bit, some hearings would have been held leading no-where except possibly to some revisions of the current rules so this situation wouldn't happen again.  Since it was HRC, we have had to live through several years of controversy, hearings, and investigation.  I do not like either HRC or Bill Clinton, but the long history of those who oppose them using public resources and treasure to try to destroy has long gotten very old.  

I dunno if that's entirely true. If HRC wasn't running for president I think this would have gone away, or possibly not even come to light. By the time it came to light HRC wasn't SoS any more and the only thing in her sights was becoming POTUS. If her sights were merely set on making post of cash on the speaking circuit and doing some charitable and UN ambassadorial work this would have gone no where. Conversely, if any other former SoS was making a run at the presidency and this came to light, there would be some attempt by the opposing party to fatally damage that person's election chances.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yeah, I buy into this train of thought as well. It's probably really nice to imagine a council of doom fixing the elections and plucking at the strings of America. But the truth is that some people have a lot of money to badger some people who have a lot of authority into sometimes doing something. They're all people. Some are good, some are bad, a few are terrible, and they've all made mistakes, compromised, and done dumb shit. The sad truth is that there is no conspiracy, no one gives a fuck.

Let's see. Republicans think government is incompetent and inefficient. Since government starts with the elected it means Republicans think (all) the elected are incompetent and inefficient, moreso if you are on the left side of the centre-line. Ergo, any Democrat is more incompetent and inefficient than any Republican. The conclusion therefore is that the default assumption for any misconduct by a Democrat is that they are useless, incompetent bunglers. If they get anything right it's dumb luck.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Today's Fbi conference basically validates the "Veep" theory of DC as being the correct and accurate portrayal of DC.  Ain't no west wing idealism. Ain't no house of cards vast and nefarious mwahaha conspiracy planning. Just veep type of carelessness and dumbfuckery.

That was pretty much my interpretation too.  Even the FBI statement is kind of a clusterfuck in that regard.

[Kalbear]

Without the benghazi hearing the email server would never have come to light. Never. No one had asked prior to this about it to any major degree. 

And the benghazi hearing turned out to be bullshit.

 

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Without the benghazi hearing the email server would never have come to light. Never. No one had asked prior to this about it to any major degree. 

And the benghazi hearing turned out to be bullshit.

 

And?

[Kalbear]

The point being that the benghazi hearing happened entirely to slander Clinton. The notion that this sort of thing happens to every candidate is obviously untrue, and certainly not true years before they run.

That said one thing I like about Clinton and the scrutiny she gets is that the government gets absurd oversight when she's involved. That's probably a good thing overall.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Brace yourselves for Sitghazi...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-leaders-investigation-sit-in-guns?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

/Your tax dollars at work

[Jace, Extat]

On 7/5/2016 at 5:55 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Let's see. Republicans think government is incompetent and inefficient. Since government starts with the elected it means Republicans think (all) the elected are incompetent and inefficient, moreso if you are on the left side of the centre-line. Ergo, any Democrat is more incompetent and inefficient than any Republican. The conclusion therefore is that the default assumption for any misconduct by a Democrat is that they are useless, incompetent bunglers. If they get anything right it's dumb luck.

Or they're all individuals with their own motivations and goals who through necessity operate as members of two ideological cliques. Sometimes they are well intentioned and effective, sometimes not. But what they are not is supervillains polishing their palms in glee at their machinations.